Strategic Spatial Options for Testing – Methodology

Home , Abington Pigotts, Knapwell, River Granta

Greater Cambridge Local Plan

November 2020

Contents

0 Non-technical Summary ...... 1

0.1 Purpose ...... 1

0.2 Identifying the reasonable alternatives ...... 1

0.3 Description of strategic spatial options and options numbers for testing ...... 2

0.4 Compiling the strategic spatial options ...... 4

1 Introduction ...... 7

1.1. Purpose ...... 7

1.2. What do we have to do? ...... 8

1.3. Identifying the reasonable alternatives ...... 11

1.4. Identifying the reasonable spatial strategy options ...... 16

2 Strategic Spatial Options for testing ...... 20

2.1. Description of the strategic options ...... 20

2.2. Strategic spatial options numbers for testing ...... 30

3 Strategic options methodology ...... 46

3.1. Overarching principles ...... 46

3.2. Spatial principles ...... 46

3.3. Opportunities and constraints ...... 52

3.4. Outline approach ...... 57

3.5. Compiling the strategic options for testing ...... 78

3.6. Strategic options – principles governing distribution ...... 80

List of appendices (included in separate documents)

Appendix 1: Spatial principles informing identification of and assumptions within strategic spatial options (page 93)

Appendix 2: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options (page 150)

Appendix 3: Strategic growth proposals included in neighbouring Local Plans (page 282)

Appendix 4: Sustainable Settlement Sizes Review (page 288)

Appendix 5: Establishing the Baseline (page 354)

Appendix 6: Delivery assumptions for housing (page 369)

Appendix 7: Identifying the number and location of jobs for modelling purposes (page 379)

Appendix 8: Baseline, opportunities and constraints mapping (page 394)

0 Non-technical Summary

0.1 Purpose This document sets out the strategic (non-site specific) spatial options to be tested through the Greater Cambridge Local Plan process, and the methodology used to identify them. The spatial options include different distributions of jobs and homes to meet different potential growth requirements.

The document is intended to demonstrate that a robust and transparent process has been followed for identifying and testing strategic spatial options, following the requirements of relevant legislation and national policy, as well as local objectives.

Once identified, the strategic options will be tested in terms of transport, climate change and other impacts and be subject to sustainability appraisal. This testing will then inform the selection of a preferred option for the Local Plan.

For further detail please see 1. Introduction.

0.2 Identifying the reasonable alternatives Growth level options Consideration of national policy requirements and relevant economic and demographic evidence has resulted in the determination of three growth scenarios for the plan period 2020-41 which are consistent for jobs and homes, as set out in the table below.

Table 1: Growth options, 2020-41 (rounded up to the nearest hundred) Growth scenario Employment (jobs) Housing (dwellings) Minimum 45,800 36,700 Medium 58,500 42,000 Maximum 79,500 57,000 Note: a typographical error was identified in the Employment Land Review during the period of testing the strategic options, such that the final ‘higher’ employment growth forecast (used in the growth options as the maximum) is for 78,800 jobs which

generates an associated growth of 56,500 homes. The differences between the figures included in the table above for testing and these revised figures are not considered to be significant in the context of this strategic testing stage.

For further detail see 1.3. Identifying the reasonable alternatives.

Strategic spatial options A full assessment of potential strategic spatial options was undertaken. Drawing on this assessment, the following options are being taken forward for testing as strategic spatial options:

1 Densification of existing urban areas 2 Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt 3 Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt 4 Dispersal - new settlements 5 Dispersal - villages 6 Public transport corridors 7 Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs 8 Expanding a growth area around transport nodes

For further detail see 1.4 Identifying the reasonable spatial strategy options, and Appendix 3: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options.

0.3 Description of strategic spatial options and options numbers for testing This section describes, for each strategic spatial option and growth scenario, the distribution of growth between the sources of supply described in 3. Strategic options methodology.

Broad descriptions of the strategic spatial options are set out below:

Spatial Scenario 1: Focus on Densification of existing urban areas This approach would focus new homes and jobs within Cambridge, because it is the main urban area and centre for services and facilities. The primary location for development within the urban area is at North East Cambridge: this is the last major brownfield site within Cambridge urban area and is being taken forward separately via an Area Action Plan.

Spatial Scenario 2: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, using land not in the green belt. The only large site on the edge of Cambridge not in the Green Belt is Cambridge Airport.

Spatial Scenario 3: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, involving release of land from the Green Belt.

Spatial Scenario 4: Focus on New Settlements New settlements would establish a whole new town or village, providing homes, jobs and supporting infrastructure in a new location, and would need to be supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge.

Spatial Scenario 5: Focus on Dispersal: Villages This approach would spread new homes and jobs out to the villages.

Spatial Scenario 6: Focus on Public transport corridors This approach would focus homes and jobs along key public transport corridors and around transport hubs, extending out from Cambridge. This could be by expanding or intensifying existing settlements, or with more new settlements.

Spatial Scenario 7: Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster) This approach would focus new homes close to existing and committed jobs within the life sciences cluster area around the south of Cambridge, including homes at existing villages and at new settlements.

Spatial Scenario 8: Expanding a growth area around transport nodes This approach would focus new homes at Cambourne and along the A428 public transport corridor, on the basis that Cambourne is due to be served by a new East West Rail station and that Cambourne and the villages along the corridor are due to be served by the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro.

For further detail see 2.1 Description of the strategic options.

The 2.2 Strategic spatial options numbers for testing section sets out in table form the distribution of the balance to find that corresponds with 2.1 Description of the strategic options. For the Minimum and Medium growth levels historic delivery rates were used, and for the Maximum growth level higher delivery rates were used (see Key point to note).

0.4 Compiling the strategic spatial options This report sets out in full the approach taken to identifying strategic spatial options (i.e. the non-site-specific distribution of growth) for each reasonable option identified above, including: • Identifying the minimum, medium and maximum growth balance to find through new allocations (note that a 10% buffer is applied to the housing growth levels identified above); and • for each reasonable alternative, distributing growth between a range of broad areas of supply.

To inform the approach taken to distributing growth, a number of factors are taken into account, including: • Overarching principles – derived from legislation and national policy relevant to testing of options • Spatial principles – derived from national policy • Opportunities and constraints - including factors such as existing and proposed transport infrastructure, assumed delivery rates, and environmental constraints

• Outline approach – setting out the approach to determining the balance to find in relation to growth levels, and key assumptions relating to sources of supply, including broad locations, capacity, availability, delivery and further evidence required for later stages of the plan-making process • Compiling the strategic options for testing – setting out how the options were compiled, drawing on the above sections, and in particular noting the spatial principles that governed the distribution of development within each option

Drawing together the above factors, the strategic spatial options were compiled and the following information is set out for each: • Description - of the option • Spatial principles/benefits - associated with the option • Resulting option assumptions – derived from the spatial principles/benefits

To ensure that consistent levels of homes and jobs were tested, slightly differing approaches were taken to distributing jobs than was taken for homes, relating to the following points: • there is significantly greater uncertainty in terms of jobs delivery in comparison with housing delivery, • the Local Plan will allocate land (not jobs) for business use (Use Class B) jobs, which only form a proportion of total jobs. • due to the level of existing commitments, it is likely much of the growth will take place at committed sites, but for modelling these strategic spatial options a proportion of the business use jobs have been identified in the new growth locations guided by the different spatial scenarios. Further detail on this point is set out at 3.4.2 How much? – Identifying the number and location of jobs, with additional detail provided within Appendix 7.

Key point to note: housing delivery rates To support an evidence-based approach to identifying reasonable spatial options, historic delivery rates for homes were used in the first instance. However, using these in early testing under a maximum growth scenario led to unrealistic and

unreasonable spatial choices to support a deliverable and sustainable plan to 2041. For example, using such historic rates would mean that, say, ten new settlements would be needed to provide sufficient delivery to achieve the maximum option by 2041, which it would clearly be unrealistic to deliver simultaneously. Further to this, considering sustainability objectives would suggest it would be more sustainable to concentrate growth in a smaller number of locations which could support greater infrastructure provision and generate greater critical population mass. This challenge is also relevant, albeit to a lesser extent, when distributing growth for the minimum and medium options.

Drawing on the above, while the distribution of growth under the minimum and medium growth scenarios relates to cautious historic delivery rates as used in published housing trajectory calculations, the distribution of growth under the maximum growth scenario assumes higher delivery rates evidenced in specific locations within Greater Cambridge. In doing so, the Councils are not indicating that they have evidence to demonstrate that such a step change increase in housing delivery rates is achievable. Further exploration of whether and how such an increase could be achieved, including through the forthcoming Housing Delivery Study referred to in this document, will be required before pursuing this approach further through the plan process.

For further detail see 3.3.2 Constraints.

1 Introduction

1.1. Purpose This document sets out the strategic (non-site specific) spatial options to be tested through the Greater Cambridge Local Plan process, and the methodology used to identify them. The spatial options include different distributions of jobs and homes to meet different potential growth requirements.

The document is intended to demonstrate that a robust and transparent process has been followed for identifying and testing strategic spatial options. This will thereby support the selection of a justified preferred spatial strategy, and associated site allocations, in a way that meets the statutory and national policy requirements set out below.

The document includes the following sections: • What do we have to do? [section 1.2]

o explains the influences on the steps taken to identifying strategic spatial options • Identifying the reasonable alternatives [section 1.3]

o sets out the approach taken to identifying the range of reasonable growth level and strategic spatial options for testing. • Description of the strategic options [section 2.1] • Strategic spatial options numbers for testing [section 2.2] • Strategic options methodology [section 3]

o sets out in full the approach taken to identifying strategic spatial options

1.2. What do we have to do?

1.2.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations As set out in Planning Practice Guidance, the identification and testing of growth level and spatial options, including strategic options, forms a key part of how the Local Plan meets the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals in each development plan document – a Sustainability Appraisal. Sustainability Appraisals incorporate the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, more commonly known as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Regulations. The key requirement within the Regulations is to complete a report to “identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of…implementing the plan or programme; and its reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”. Guidance on applying the SEA Directive, on which the Regulations are based, clarifies that ‘only reasonable, realistic and relevant alternatives need to be put forward’1.

Drawing on the above, this paper, in informing the identification of strategic options, seeks to ensure that: • All reasonable growth and spatial option alternatives have been identified, and • all growth and spatial options identified are reasonable, realistic and relevant2, and take into account the objectives (so far as is appropriate at this stage) and the geographical scope of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

1.2.2 Climate Act 2008 (as amended 2019) The Local Plan is subject to a wide range of legislation, for which most has been taken into account in the wording of national planning policy and guidance (explored below). However, perhaps the most relevant which is not fully reflected in the NPPF is the Climate Act 2008 as amended in 2019, which includes a target of net zero

1 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. Practical guidance on applying European Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Appendix 6 2 Ibid.

carbon Green House Gas emissions by 2050. The implications of the Act are that a key part of Local Plan options testing will be to consider the impact on carbon emissions and climate change, and to understand the role of the options in responding to the journey towards zero carbon by 2050. The implications of the Act are identified as relevant in the sections below.

1.2.3 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reflects the SEA Regulations requirements to assess reasonable options. In particular, paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that plans are sound if they are “Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence”.

Further to this, for the purpose of this paper, the plan-making process and spatial principles set out in the NPPF have influenced: • confirmation of reasonable alternatives, and • assumptions made within each alternative, and the evidence used to inform this.

Further details of this are provided within the 1.3 Confirming the reasonable alternatives and 3. Strategic options methodology sections. A full analysis of NPPF influences on development and assessment of spatial options is set out at Appendix 1: Spatial principles informing identification of and assumptions within strategic spatial options.

1.2.4 Emerging objectives for the Local Plan As noted above, the SEA Regulations state that the reasonable options should take into account ‘the objectives…of the plan or programme’. At this early stage in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan process fixed objectives have yet to be confirmed; however, the First Conversation consultation identified four big themes that will influence how homes, jobs and infrastructure are planned, drawing on the feedback

the councils received from Councillors, communities and businesses while preparing the document3.

The big themes are: • Climate change – how the plan should contribute to achieving net zero carbon, and the mitigation and adaptation measures that should be required through developments. • Biodiversity and green spaces – how the plan can contribute to our ‘doubling nature’ vision, the improvement of existing and the creation of new green spaces. • Wellbeing and social inclusion – how the plan can help spread the benefits of growth, helping to create healthy and inclusive communities. • Great places – how the plan can protect what is already great about the area, and design new developments to create special places and spaces.

The high-level nature of the big themes mean that they do not translate clearly into informing confirmation of reasonable alternatives, or specific assumptions made within each option. Objectives for the Plan will be developed alongside assessment and engagement regarding a preferred strategic option, and will inform later stages of the plan-making process.

In addition to the above themes, the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report identifies fifteen Sustainability Appraisal objectives. An analysis of these, as matched against the Big Themes referred to above (see Appendix 1), concluded that for the purposes of informing the compilation of strategic spatial options they did not add substantively to the NPPF spatial principles referred to above.

3 Note that these themes were identified before the Covid-19 pandemic, the impacts of which will need to be integrated into the further development of the Local Plan.

1.3. Identifying the reasonable alternatives This section sets out the approach taken to identifying the range of reasonable growth level and strategic spatial options for testing.

1.3.1 Identifying growth level options A consistent approach has been taken to identify lower and higher housing and jobs growth levels for testing. This work is set out in Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships Report.

1.3.2 National policy requirements The NPPF sets out that evidence on growth levels should (NPPF paragraph numbers shown in brackets): • identify objectively assessed (i.e. policy-off) needs for housing and other uses (11) • be up to date, taking into account market signals (31) • consider economic growth potential (80) • consider the role of key sectors and clusters in driving potential future growth in Greater Cambridge (82)

The NPPF sets out that Local Plans should: • support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, by enabling a sufficient amount and variety of land to come forward where it is needed (59) • provide, as a minimum, a number of homes ‘informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals’ (60) • Account for any unmet needs arising from neighbouring areas (11, 27)

1.3.3 Identifying a reasonable low growth option Considerations The nationally set standard method provides the basis for the Councils’ minimum housing need. Currently, this amounts to 1,743 additional homes a year. This has been set as the minimum growth option as it is the minimum number of additional homes that the Local Plan must cater for. Work has been undertaken to identify the total number of jobs and related employment land needed to correspond with this level of additional housing growth.

The approach the councils are taking to the Duty to Cooperate, including on the issue of unmet need, is set out in the Greater Cambridge Duty to Cooperate Proposed Approach, June 2020. At this point neighbouring authorities have not asked the councils to consider taking any unmet needs. If such a request arose, they would be under obligation to consider this, but are not necessarily obliged to agree to provide for those needs. Equally, the councils are not currently making a request to neighbouring authorities to take any needs arising from Greater Cambridge.

Identified reasonable low growth option As described above, the low growth option is the minimum level of housing growth the councils should be planning for as set out in the NPPF.

1.3.4 Identifying reasonable medium and high growth options Considerations National guidance indicates that there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than that derived from the standard method. None of the examples provided4 are directly applicable to circumstances in Greater Cambridge. However, in accordance with national objectives to consider an area’s economic growth potential, the continuing strength of the Greater Cambridge economy as evidenced in the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) provided justification for exploring higher employment and related housing figures. A key aim for the

4 Planning Practice Guidance, Housing and Economic Needs Assessment, Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a- 010-20190220

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority is that economic output will double over the next 25 years, with an uplift in GVA from £22bn to over £40bn5.

The Greater Cambridge Employment Land Review & Economic Evidence Base Study considered a range of approaches to identifying employment futures for Greater Cambridge, drawing on the available historic employment data. At this point in time the report has not considered the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. This evidence base will be kept under review including in relation to the impacts of Covid-19.

The assessment included consideration of data informing the CPIER. The CPIER’s future employment forecast was not used directly as an option because it provides an aggregated view of the whole Cambridgeshire & Peterborough economy, rather than a sector-by-sector view at a Greater Cambridge level.

The approach followed in the Councils’ Employment Land Review is based on consideration of realistic employment forecasts for Greater Cambridge that would take account of the continued fast economic growth seen in recent years. The work uses recent and longer-term historic growth rates to forecast the future performance of the Greater Cambridge economy and key sectors within it. These key sectors were identified through an examination of which parts of the economy have driven growth in the recent past. The findings of this work set out a range of employment forecasts, with the upper level – ‘higher’ - outcome placing greater weight on fast growth in the recent past, particularly in key sectors, and the lower level – ‘central’ – outcome considered the most likely, taking into account long term patterns of employment.

The ‘central’ employment forecast was selected as the basis for a ‘medium growth’ option and the ‘higher’ employment forecast was selected as a ‘maximum growth’ option.

5 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution Deal. March 2017.

Additional employment generates a demand for additional housing from those who move into an area to take up those jobs. To provide a consistent understanding of the homes that might be required to support jobs, alongside an understanding of the minimum housing need and the jobs that that minimum would support, these employment figures were converted into housing growth figures (the Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships Report).

To translate jobs growth to housing growth it is necessary to apply a number of assumptions, including in particular commuting assumptions. In the first instance, the Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships Report used a default assumption of Census 2011 commuting patterns (noting that the Census remains the most up to date comprehensive source of commuting data until publication of Census 2021 data) to inform the identification of: • housing growth levels generated by the Central and Higher employment growth forecasts. Applying these existing commuting assumptions provides an understanding of the number of homes that might need to be provided to meet those higher forecasts, both within Greater Cambridge and in locations outside of Greater Cambridge. • the jobs growth supported by the Standard Method housing figure. Existing commuting patterns are assumed to be carried forward under the standard method, where it is used by adjoining districts as part of their own plan making.

For the Central and Higher employment growth forecasts, the Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships Report also undertook a sensitivity test to understand the total additional housing growth generated by additional jobs above those supported by the Standard Method, if that growth were to be delivered in full within the Greater Cambridge area. This assumed that all those workers filling the additional jobs would live within Greater Cambridge (a 1:1 commuting ratio) rather than assuming further in-commuting from neighbouring districts. Across Greater Cambridge, using the 1:1 ratio for additional jobs shows housing growth for Greater Cambridge around 114 dwellings per annum (dpa) higher for the Central forecast

and 141 dpa (for the Higher forecast) than when using the Census 2011-based commuting assumptions.

For the purposes of testing of strategic options, the minimum and medium option assumes the continuation of 2011 Census commuting patterns, relying on this as a default assumption. For the maximum growth option, the Councils assumed the 1:1 commuting assumption, in order to test a maximum housing growth level for Greater Cambridge to go with the maximum jobs forecast. Applying these assumptions at this strategic options stage does not prejudice a decision on which approach the Councils might take on this issue when determining a preferred growth level option for the plan itself.

1.3.5 Growth levels for testing Drawing on the above, the range of reasonable growth options to be taken forward for testing is as follows:

Table 2: Growth options, 2020-41 (rounded up to the nearest hundred) Growth scenario Employment (jobs) Housing (dwellings) Minimum 45,800 36,700 Medium 58,500 42,000 Maximum 79,500 57,000 Note: a typographical error was identified in the Employment Land Review during the period of testing the strategic options, such that the maximum employment growth forecast is for 78,800 jobs and 56,500 homes respectively. The differences between the figures included in the table above for testing and these revised figures are not considered to be significant in the context of this strategic testing stage.

The jobs for 2020-2041 identified in the table above are for all jobs. Allocations for employment land (business uses such as offices, research and development and industrial uses) in Local Plans only account for a relatively small proportion of overall jobs. Local Plans do not allocate land for the very significant proportion of jobs arising in other population-driven sectors such as shops, leisure and education.

Guided by the Employment Land Review, the split of jobs between business uses and non-business uses are set out in the table below.

Table 2: Growth options for jobs, 2020-41

Requirement Minimum Medium Maximum Total jobs requirement 45,800 58,500 79,500 Business use jobs 10,765 20,625 26,735 requirement

Further detail on the approach to testing growth levels within the strategic spatial options is set out at 3.4.2 How much? - Establishing the number of homes to find and 3.4.3 How much? – Identifying the number and location of jobs.

1.3.6 Covid-19 impacts This work is being kept under review, and at this point in time it has not considered the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.

1.4. Identifying the reasonable spatial strategy options This section identifies the full range of reasonable spatial strategy options for testing.

These aspects are summarised below, and explored in full at Appendix 3: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options. This document seeks to: • assess whether the spatial choices set out in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Conversation consultation are indeed reasonable; and • identify whether there are any additional reasonable spatial options that should be added to the First Conversation choices.

In considering the reasonable options it is important to note that it is not practicable or reasonable to identify every potential minor variation of a spatial strategy. The intention of these options will be to test the main choices available, acknowledging that the final preferred scenario may represent a hybrid of these.

1.4.1 Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation options The Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation (Issues and Options) consultation was held in January-February 2020. The consultation included the following six high level spatial choices: • Densification of existing urban areas • Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt • Dispersal - new settlements • Dispersal - villages • Public transport corridors

The spatial choices above were identified by the Councils as reasonable options drawing upon the development strategy options considered for the Councils’ current Local Plans, as well as considering spatial options identified in the recent Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) and other approaches taken nationally.

The consultation acknowledged that the best scenario could potentially involve some growth in all of these locations but in different proportions depending upon the prioritisation of the themes in the plan.

1.4.1.1 Sustainability Appraisal of First Conversation spatial choices The Sustainability Appraisal assessed these choices at a high level against each Sustainability Appraisal objective. However, many of the potential effects identified are dependent on the exact location, layout and design of development.

In summary, the Sustainability Appraisal found that: • Densification: performs well against the Sustainability Appraisal objectives compared with many of the other options, but not against all Sustainability Appraisal objectives. • Edge of Cambridge – Outside the Green Belt: performs well against most of the Sustainability Appraisal objectives, with no potential significant negative effects identified.

• Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt: performs well against most Sustainability Appraisal objectives, although not quite as well as Densification and Edge of Cambridge – Outside the Green Belt but generally better than Dispersal: New Settlements, Public transport corridors, and Dispersal: Villages. • New Settlements and Public transport corridors: perform similarly, although the effects against individual objectives differ. • Dispersal – Villages: is likely to be the least sustainable option, as it consistently scores poorly against a number of Sustainability Appraisal objectives compared with the alternatives.

In practice, the actual effects are heavily dependent upon the precise location and scale of development, the quality of design and the delivery of supporting infrastructure. Therefore, these high-level results need to be treated with a considerable degree of caution.

1.4.1.2 Testing of First Conversation options Assessment of the First Conversation options at Appendix 2: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options confirmed that all six First Conversation options should be taken forward for strategic options testing.

1.4.2 Identifying any additional reasonable spatial options Consideration of identifying any additional reasonable spatial options included sifting of a long list of 97 ideas (set out at Annex B of Appendix 2: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options) and full testing of 29 shortlisted ideas (set out at Annex C of the same document).

Full assessment identified the following options as being reasonable and substantively different to the First Conversation options as above.

• Option C08: Expanded growth area • Option E08: A428 Corridor • Principle D24: Nature First • Principle E21: Nature Recovery Network

A cross-check review and further exploration of the options identified as being reasonable and substantively different to the First Conversation options is set out at Annexes D and E of Appendix 3: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options. These tasks identified the following options as being reasonable, substantively different to First Conversation options, and distinct from each other. These options are therefore added as options for testing at a strategic level: • Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs • Expanding a growth area around transport nodes

1.4.3 List of reasonable spatial options for testing Drawing on the above, the following options are to be taken forward for testing as strategic spatial options: • Densification of existing urban areas • Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt • Dispersal - new settlements • Dispersal - villages • Public transport corridors • Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs • Expanding a growth area around transport nodes

Further to the above considerations, the Sustainability Appraisal consultants, and legal advisors, have been involved in discussions as to whether the strategic spatial options identified appropriately cover reasonable alternatives.

2 Strategic Spatial Options for testing

2.1. Description of the strategic options This section describes, for each strategic spatial option and growth scenario, the distribution of growth between the sources of supply identified in the 3. Strategic Options Methodology section. These include the option focus source of supply, and where that supply is exhausted, based upon reasoned estimates of capacity (set out at 3.4.4 Where: Establishing sources of new supply), additional sources of supply to make up balance.

2.1.1 Spatial Scenario 1: Focus on Densification of existing urban areas 2.1.1.1 Outline description This approach would focus new homes and jobs within Cambridge, because it is the main urban area and centre for services and facilities. The primary location for development within the urban area is at North East Cambridge: the last major brownfield site within Cambridge urban area is at North East Cambridge which is being taken forward separately via an Area Action Plan.

2.1.1.2 Detailed description Minimum (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates) • Cambridge urban area (low density) – not total capacity, only enough dwellings to fulfil balance to find

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates) • Cambridge urban area (medium density)

Additional sources of supply to make up balance • Cambridge Airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, using historic delivery rates) • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt (equivalent to one site / broad location, using historic delivery rates) – not total capacity, only enough dwellings to fulfil balance to find

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using delivery rates as included in the housing trajectory in the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (July 2020)) • Cambridge urban area (at high density) Additional sources of supply to make up balance • Cambridge airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, higher delivery rates) – delivery by 2041 constrained to provide only enough dwellings to fulfil balance to find

2.1.2 Spatial Scenario 2: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt 2.1.2.1 Outline Description This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, using land not in the green belt. The only large site on the edge of Cambridge not in the Green Belt is Cambridge Airport.

2.1.2.2 Detailed description Minimum (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Cambridge airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, using historic delivery rates)

Additional sources of supply to make up balance • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates) • One site at a Rural Centre outside of the Green Belt to make up balance to find

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Cambridge airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, using historic delivery rates) Additional sources of supply to make up balance • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates) • Two smaller new settlements of 4,500 dwellings on public transport corridors to meet the balance to find (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates) • Balance to find spread across the Rural Centre (30%) and Minor Rural Centres (70%) outside of the Green Belt

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Cambridge airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, using higher delivery rates) Additional sources of supply to make up balance • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using delivery rates as included in the housing trajectory in the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (July 2020)) • One larger new settlement of 9,000 dwellings on a public transport corridor (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates but constrained to ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figure)

• One smaller new settlement of 4,500 dwellings on a public transport corridor (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates but constrained to ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figure)

2.1.3 Spatial Scenario 3: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt 2.1.3.1 Outline Description This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, involving release of land from the Green Belt.

2.1.3.2 Detailed Description Minimum (historic delivery rates) Option focus source of supply • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt (equivalent to three sites / broad locations, with development limited to ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find.

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt (equivalent to five sites / broad locations, using historic delivery rates) Additional sources of supply to make up balance • Minimal balance to find located within Cambridge urban area.

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt (equivalent to five sites / broad locations, using higher delivery rates, with development limited to ensure the strategic option equals the balance to find).

2.1.4 Spatial Scenario 4: Focus on New Settlements

2.1.4.1 Outline Description New settlements would establish a whole new town or village, providing homes, jobs and supporting infrastructure in a new location, and would need to be supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge.

2.1.4.2 Detailed Description Minimum (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Two smaller new settlements of 4,500 dwellings on a public transport corridor (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates constrained to ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figure).

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Three new settlements on public transport corridors (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates constrained ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figures), including:

o Two larger new settlements of 9,000 dwellings o One smaller new settlement of 4,500 dwellings • One smaller new settlement of 4,500 homes on the road network (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates constrained ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figures).

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include:

Option focus source of supply • Three new settlements on public transport corridors (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates constrained ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figures), including:

o Two larger new settlements of 9,000 dwellings o One smaller new settlement of 4,500 dwellings • One smaller new settlement of 4,500 homes on the road network (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates constrained ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figures).

2.1.5 Spatial Scenario 5: Focus on Dispersal: Villages

2.1.5.1 Outline Description This approach would spread new homes and jobs out to the villages.

2.1.5.2 Detailed Description Minimum, medium and high growth options (historic delivery rates) N.B. High growth option assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Option focus source of supply • 40% of balance to find at Rural Centres • 40% of balance to find at Minor Rural Centres (while this the same percentage of growth in total, because there are many more Minor Rural Centres than Rural Centres the absolute growth in each village is significantly greater for each Rural Centre). • 17% of balance to find at Group villages • 3% of balance to find at Infill villages

2.1.6 Spatial Scenario 6: Focus on Public transport corridors

2.1.6.1 Outline Description This approach would focus homes and jobs along key public transport corridors and around transport hubs, extending out from Cambridge. This could be by expanding or intensifying existing settlements, or with more new settlements.

2.1.6.2 Detailed Description Minimum (historic delivery rates) Option focus source of supply • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates) • One smaller new settlement of 4,500 homes on a public transport corridor (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates constrained ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figure). • Minimal balance to find spread across eighteen villages sited along existing or proposed public transport corridors

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates) • One larger new settlement of 9,000 homes on a public transport corridor (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates) • Balance to find spread across eighteen villages sited along existing or proposed public transport corridors

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include:

Option focus source of supply • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using delivery rates as included in the housing trajectory in the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (July 2020)) • One larger new settlement of 9,000 homes on a public transport corridor (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates) • Balance to find spread across eighteen villages sited along existing or proposed public transport corridors

2.1.7 Spatial Scenario 7: Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster)

2.1.7.1 Outline Description This approach would focus new homes close to existing and committed jobs within the life sciences cluster area around the south of Cambridge, including homes at existing villages and at new settlements.

2.1.7.2 Detailed Description Minimum (historic delivery rates)

Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • One smaller new settlement of 4,500 homes on a public transport corridor within the southern cluster area (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates) • Balance to find distributed equally between the five villages located within the core southern cluster area that are also on a public transport corridor.

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • One smaller new settlement of 4,500 homes on a public transport corridor within the southern cluster area (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates)

• Balance to find spread across five villages sited along existing or proposed public transport corridors within the core southern cluster area (70%), and further villages within Southern Cluster core area not on PT corridors (including Group villages (20%) and Infill villages (10%).

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • One larger new settlement of 9,000 homes on a public transport corridor within the southern cluster (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates) • Balance to find spread equally across five villages sited at existing or proposed public transport nodes within the southern cluster. Additional sources of supply to make up balance • Cambridge airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, using higher delivery rates) • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using delivery rates constrained to ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figure).

2.1.8 Spatial Scenario 8: Expanding a growth area around transport nodes

2.1.8.1 Outline Description This approach would focus new homes at Cambourne and along the A428 public transport corridor, on the basis that Cambourne is due to be served by a new East West Rail station and that Cambourne and the villages along the corridor are due to be served by the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro.

2.1.8.2 Detailed Description

Minimum (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include:

Option focus source of supply • Expansion of Cambourne by the equivalent of one smaller new settlement (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates)

o completions and commitments + 4,500 dwellings = 11,300 (and close to further development of 3,500 at Bourn Airfield New Village) • Balance to find spread across three villages sited along the A428 public transport corridor

Medium (historic delivery rates) Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Expansion of Cambourne by the equivalent of one smaller new settlement (delivery by 2041, using historic delivery rates)

o completions and commitments + 4,500 dwellings = 11,300 dwellings (and close to further development of 3,500 at Bourn Airfield New Village) • Balance to find spread across three villages sited along the A428 public transport corridor (60%) and four further Minor Rural Centre/Group villages sited within 5km of Cambourne (40%). Additional sources of supply to make up balance • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using historic delivery rates)

Maximum (higher delivery rates) N.B. Assumes additional delivery by 2041 at committed new settlements. Broad areas to include: Option focus source of supply • Expansion of Cambourne by the equivalent of one larger new settlement (delivery by 2041, using higher delivery rates)

o completions and commitments + 9,000 dwellings = 15,800 dwellings (and close to further development of 3,500 at Bourn Airfield New Village) • Balance to find (accounting for sources of supply below) spread across:

o three villages sited along the A428 public transport corridor (60%)

o one Minor Rural Centre and three Group villages within 5km of Cambourne (40%) Additional sources of supply to make up balance • Cambridge airport (initial phase post 2030, outside Green Belt, using higher delivery rates) • North East Cambridge (delivery by 2041 assumption, using delivery rates constrained to ensure that the strategic option homes total equals the balance to find. This does not affect the total homes all time figure).

2.2. Strategic spatial options numbers for testing

Homes

Balance to find • Growth requirement comprises: homes requirements 2020-2041, derived from Greater Cambridge Employment Land Review and Greater Cambridge Housing and Employment Relationships Report • Total figure to find (growth requirement + 10% buffer) comprises: growth figure + a 10% buffer • Supply comprises: existing commitments including permissions and adopted allocations, a windfall allowance, plus Wellcome Genome Campus (with resolution to grant permission) and minus Cambridge uncertain allocations • Committed new settlements - additional delivery comprises: under the higher delivery rates assumption incorporated into the maximum growth scenario for all options, a further 8,600 dwellings could be delivered from the existing committed new settlements by 2041. This figure is therefore included in the calculation to identify the balance to find under the maximum growth scenario. Further detailed information is provided in Appendix 6. • Balance to be made in new allocations = Total figure to find – supply – committed new settlements (if relevant)

Strategic options For each option and each growth scenario, the balance to be made in new allocations is distributed across the sources of supply as informed by the spatial principles referred to above. For more detail regarding the sources of supply, including capacity, availability and delivery, see 3.4.4 Where? Establishing sources of new supply.

Columns under the heading ‘All time’ refer to the period 2020 until build out has completed of all planned growth.

The minimum and medium growth scenarios include historic delivery rates. The maximum growth scenarios include higher delivery rates. For more detail see 3.4.2 How much? - Establishing the number of homes to find.

Villages

Village categories are applied in the following options, relying on general sustainability of villages: 1. Densification; 2. Edge of Cambridge - Non Green Belt; 3. Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt; 4. New Settlements; and 5. Villages. For these options, village rows are set out as follows, if development has been assumed to have been located in that category:

o Villages Total o Rural centres o Minor rural centres o Group o Infill

Village categories are not applied in the following options as these rely on proximity to public transport nodes: 6: Public Transport Corridors, 7. Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster) and 8. Expanding a growth area around transport nodes.

2.2.1 Spatial Scenario 1: Focus on Densification of existing urban areas Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. + 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8,600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations

Strategic options Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Source of supply / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area 2,000 2,000 5,600 5,600 6,800 6,800 North East Cambridge 1,900 8,300 1,900 8,300 8,000 8,300 Cambridge Airport (safeguarded - - 1,900 9,500 2,900 9,500 land) Green Belt Fringe - - 400 400 - New settlements on public - - - - - transport corridors New settlements on road network - - - - - Villages Total ------Total 3,900 10,300 9,800 23,800 17,700 24,600

2.2.2 Spatial Scenario 2: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. + 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations

Strategic options Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Source of supply / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area ------North East Cambridge 1,900 8,300 1,900 8,300 8,000 8,300 Cambridge Airport (safeguarded 1,900 9,500 1,900 9,500 3,800 9,500 land) Green Belt Fringe ------New settlements on public transport - - 5,000 9,000 5,900 13,500 corridors New settlements on road network ------Villages Total 100 100 1,000 1,000 - - Rural Centres 100 100 300 300 Minor Rural Centres 700 700

Total 3,900 17,900 9,800 27,800 17,700 31,300

2.2.3 Spatial Scenario 3: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A + 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations

Strategic options Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Source of supply / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area - - 300 300 - - North East Cambridge ------Cambridge Airport (safeguarded ------land) Green Belt Fringe 3,900 3,900 9,500 9,500 17,700 17,700 New settlements on public ------transport corridors New settlements on road network ------Villages Total ------Total 3,900 3,900 9,800 9,800 17,700 17,700

2.2.4 Spatial Scenario 4: Focus on New Settlements Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A + 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8,600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations:

Strategic options Source of supply / Growth Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area ------North East Cambridge ------Cambridge Airport (safeguarded ------land) Green Belt Fringe ------New settlements on public transport corridors 3,900 9,000 7,350 22,500 13,150 22,500 New settlements on road - - 2,450 4,500 4,550 9,000 network Villages Total ------Total 3,900 9,000 9,800 27,000 17,700 31,500

2.2.5 Spatial Scenario 5: Focus on Dispersal: Villages Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A + 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations:

Strategic options Source of supply / Growth Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area - - - - North East Cambridge - - - Cambridge Airport (safeguarded land) - - - Green Belt Fringe - - - New settlements on public - - - transport corridors New settlements on road network - - - Villages Total 3,900 3,900 9,800 9,800 17,700 17,700 Rural Centres 1,560 1,560 3,920 3,920 7,080 7,080

Minor Rural Centres 1,560 1,560 3,920 3,920 7,080 7,080 Group 663 663 1,666 1,666 3,009 3,009 Infill 117 117 294 294 531 531 Total 3,900 3,900 9,800 9,800 17,700 17,700

2.2.6 Spatial Scenario 6: Focus on Public transport corridors Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A + 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations:

Strategic options Source of supply / Growth Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area ------North East Cambridge 1,900 8,300 1,900 8,300 8,000 8,300 Cambridge Airport (safeguarded ------land) Green Belt Fringe ------New settlements on public 1,900 4,500 2,500 9,000 5,100 9,000 transport corridors New settlements on road network ------Villages Total 100 100 5,400 5,400 4,600 4,600 Villages on Public Transport 100 100 5,400 5,400 4,600 4,600 Corridors

Total 3,900 12,900 9,800 22,700 17,700 21,900

2.2.7 Spatial Scenario 7: Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster) Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A + 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations:

Strategic options Source of supply / Growth Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area ------North East Cambridge - - - - 4,900 8,300 Cambridge Airport (safeguarded land) - - - - 3,800 9,500 Green Belt Fringe ------New settlements on public transport corridors 2,500 4,500 2,500 4,500 5,100 9,000 New settlements on road network ------Villages Total 1,400 1,400 7,300 7,300 3,900 3,900 Villages sited along existing or 1,400 1,400 5,110 5,110 3,900 3,900 proposed public transport

corridors within the core southern cluster area Further villages within Southern - - 1,460 1,460 - Cluster core area not on PT corridors: Group Further villages within Southern - - 730 730 - Cluster core area not on PT corridors: Infill Total 3,900 5,900 9,800 11,800 17,700 30,700

2.2.8 Spatial Scenario 8: Expanding a growth area around transport nodes Balance to find Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Growth requirement 36,700 N/A 42,000 N/A 57,000 N/A Total figure to find (growth req. 40,300 N/A 46,200 N/A 62,700 N/A + 10% buffer) Supply 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A 36,400 N/A Committed new settlements - 0 N/A 0 N/A 8600 N/A additional delivery Balance to be made in new 3,900 N/A 9,800 N/A 17,700 N/A allocations:

Strategic options Source of supply / Growth Minimum: Minimum: Medium: Medium: Maximum: Maximum: Level 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time 2020-2041 All time Cambridge urban area ------North East Cambridge - - 1,900 8,300 4,900 8,300 Cambridge Airport (safeguarded - - - - 3,800 9,500 land) Green Belt Fringe ------New settlements on public 2,500 4,500 2,500 4,500 5,100 9,000 transport corridors New settlements on road ------network Villages Total 1,400 1,400 5,400 5,400 3,900 3,900 Villages sited along the A428 1,400 1,400 3,240 3,240 2,340 2,340 public transport corridor

Further Minor Rural - - 2,160 2,160 1,560 1,560 Centre/Group villages sited within 5km of Cambourne Total 3,900 5,900 9,800 18,200 17,700 30,700

Jobs

Counting homes, for the purposes of monitoring past delivery, and for estimating overall supply and future delivery, is relatively simple. In comparison, counting jobs is much more difficult for the following reasons: • Jobs change is subject to far more variables than house building, and as a result is volatile and fast changing. • Local Plans cannot make provision for jobs directly, but rather make provision for employment land (which can accommodate business floorspace, measured in square metres) to support jobs. As such it can only be estimated how many jobs such land might support. • Allocations for employment land in Local Plans only account for a relatively small proportion of overall jobs – employment allocations are for jobs in B use classes (covering office, research and development and industrial uses). These don’t currently account for the very significant proportion of jobs arising in other population-driven sectors such as shops, leisure and education.

For the purposes of modelling transport impacts in particular, it is necessary to consider specific distributions of jobs (rather than likely delivery of floorspace) as jobs are a key determinant of travel patterns. The Councils have therefore provided distributions of B use class jobs for each spatial option to the transport modelling team, for them to apply alongside standard assumptions for population driven non B use jobs sectors. The total number of jobs in each spatial option matches the maximum, medium or minimum jobs level as appropriate, in order that the modelling provides consistent testing of total homes and job numbers across each of the spatial options.

An explanation of the methodology used and the resulting distribution of jobs for each spatial option is set out in Appendix 7.

3 Strategic options methodology

This section sets out in full the approach taken to identifying strategic spatial options (i.e. the non-site specific distribution of growth) for each reasonable option identified above at section 1.4.3. List of reasonable options for testing, including: • Identifying the minimum, medium and maximum growth balance to find through new allocations; and • for each reasonable alternative, distributing growth between a range of broad areas of supply.

3.1. Overarching principles The following principles will be used to guide the spatial options development: • Not to predetermine any key element of the spatial strategy, such that no single broad spatial location for growth is included in all options. • Be reasonable, defined as realistic, options, including:

o informed by high-level estimates of the capacity and availability of broad spatial locations, taking into account environmental constraints,

o informed by evidence-based assumptions about delivery rates, and o based on a consistent set of assumptions (such as incorporating committed transport schemes, and consistent assumptions about housing density). • Take a policy-off approach in respect of spatial policy designations such as Green Belt and development frameworks (this approach assumes that these policy designations do not apply to enable a fuller consideration of development opportunities. Note the exception to this principle is Spatial Option 2: Edge of Cambridge – non Green Belt option, which explicitly seeks to explore a scenario in which the Green Belt was retained in its current form, in order to test all reasonable options, and also to address the NPPF principle referred to below at 3.2. Spatial principles).

3.2. Spatial principles The NPPF has been used to identify a number of additional spatial principles to take into account in compiling the strategic spatial options. Further to this, a cross check

was also undertaken of the implications of Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation Big Themes and Greater Cambridge Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Objectives on principles for developing the strategic spatial options, including whether these had further implications for the strategic spatial options beyond those identified in relation to the NPPF. The conclusion to this exercise was that these did not add substantively to the NPPF principles set out below. For further detail refer to Appendix 1.

The NPPF spatial principles are set out below (with relevant NPPF paragraph numbers in brackets) and have informed: • specific assumptions included within each strategic option, and • the evidence required to inform these specific assumptions, if necessary.

Flexible plan-making to allow for change • Principle: Plans should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (11) • Options assumption: A flexibility buffer of 10% is added to each growth level option for testing (for homes).

Account for environmental constraints • Principle: Take into account environmental constraints as set out in NPPF footnote 6, such as habitat sites, heritage assets, and flood risk (11) • Options assumption: Account for environmental constraints when identifying strategic options. Note the approach to this is explained below at 3.3.2 Constraints. • Evidence:

o Constraints mapping to inform options development. o Strategic Flood Risk Assessment/Water Cycle Study and Habitat Regulations Assessment consultants to comment on options as they are developed.

Account for cross boundary impacts • Principle: Account for any unmet needs arising from neighbouring areas (11, 27)

• Options assumption: As set out in the Greater Cambridge Duty to Cooperate Proposed Approach, June 2020, the councils are engaging on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities under the duty to cooperate, including to understand whether any neighbours are asking the councils to take any unmet needs. At the time of writing, no neighbouring authorities have asked the councils to do so. • Principle: Take account of neighbouring authority proposals to locate strategic growth close to the boundary of Greater Cambridge (24-27). • Options assumption: A list of neighbouring adopted and emerging Local Plans and the strategic growth included within them is set out at Appendix 4. It is not considered that these proposals should substantively affect the development of the strategic options.

Deliverable, including in the first five years • Principle: Take into account understanding of delivery rates and land availability when considering reasonable growth level options, and when distributing growth between options (35, 72). • Options assumptions:

o Include evidence-based assumptions about delivery rates when distributing growth between sources of supply.

o Incorporate broad awareness of available sites when distributing growth between sources of supply.

o Identify the likely pattern of development at the end of the plan period, but also once all development has been built out, acknowledging that larger scale development sites such as new settlements have longer lead in times and will often be built out over longer than a plan period, but can provide certainty with regard to the development industry, investment in infrastructure and funding sources. • Evidence:

o Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply document (November 2019) sets out assumptions about delivery rates based upon historic rates.

o Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Call for Sites provides awareness of sites submitted to the Councils for development, to provide an awareness of available sites, but not be tied to them. • Principle: Take into account the need to maintain a five-year housing supply when distributing growth between sources of supply in strategic options (67, 73, 75). • Options assumption:

o Include a proportion of smaller sites in nearly (see below) every option, to support maintaining a five-year housing land supply.

o Notwithstanding this policy requirement, distributing a large proportion of the growth requirement to lots of smaller sites may not support Climate Act requirements to support zero carbon targets. Given that the Act is a statutory requirement in tension with national policy requirements, options are included that include greater concentrations of growth with fewer smaller sites, on the basis that it may better support the achievement of zero carbon.

Include proportion of small sites • Principle: Local Plan to identify land to accommodate “at least 10% of housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare; unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved” (68). • Options assumption:

o Further work is being carried out to understand the implications of this for Greater Cambridge. However, initial calculations indicate further sites will be required. The implication of this will be that a preferred spatial strategy will require an element of growth in the urban area and villages to provide for this requirement. Note that at this strategic spatial options stage, the options have been made intentionally distinct, and none is expressly intended to form a preferred option. As such, the small sites principle has been considered qualitatively for each strategic option, but a 10% requirement has not informed distribution of growth.

o Notwithstanding the above, distributing a large proportion of the growth requirement to lots of smaller sites may not support Climate Act requirements to support zero carbon targets. Given that the Act is a statutory requirement in tension with national policy requirements, options are included that include greater concentrations of growth with fewer smaller sites, on the basis that it may better support the achievement of zero carbon.

Integrate development with infrastructure • Principles:

o Consider relationship with existing and/or planned infrastructure (72) o Locate growth closest to existing or proposed transport infrastructure (102,103)

o Locate growth in locations that minimise the number and length of journeys needed for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities (104) • Options assumption: Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure • Evidence:

o Transport Study - the Transport Existing Conditions Report identifies existing transport provision, and also planned transport network improvements that could influence growth locations. See also 3.3.1.1 Existing and planned transport infrastructure below.

o Sustainable settlement sizes review (see Appendix 4) – has considered what are sustainable sizes and locations for communities in a Greater Cambridge context, including considering infrastructure provision and NPPF Design principles (72, 127)

o Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Viability Study

Support sustainability of rural settlements • Principles:

o In rural areas, consider opportunities to support local services, perhaps in one location to support services in nearby villages (78)

• Options assumption: When locating supply at existing settlements in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure.

Make effective use of land • Principles:

o Make as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land (117)

o Optimise the density of development, promoting a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport (123,137) • Options assumption: Within all options, make assumptions about the capacity of existing urban areas, including in ways that seek to maximise densities.

Account for the importance of Green Belt • Principles:

o Only alter Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances (136) o Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development (137)

o When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account (137)

o Consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary (137)

o Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport (137)

• Options assumptions:

o Within the range of options tested, to support exploration of whether exceptional circumstances for changes to Green Belt boundaries exist (assumed to relate to relative sustainability impacts), include options that locate development outside of Cambridge Green Belt boundaries (i.e. assuming that exceptional circumstances don’t exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries) and also options that locate development within Cambridge Green Belt boundaries (i.e. assuming that exceptional circumstances do exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries).

o Within options that locate development within Green Belt boundaries, give first consideration to sources of supply that are previously- developed and/or are well-served by public transport. • Evidence: A detailed study of the Cambridge Green Belt will be carried out, to identify the contribution land makes to Green Belt purposes, in order to understand the level of harm that would be caused by development in different areas of the Green Belt. This will be a key consideration when considering Green Belt land release later in the plan process, but will not be completed in time to form a part of the consideration of Strategic Spatial Options.

3.3. Opportunities and constraints

3.3.1. Opportunities 3.3.1.1. Existing and planned transport infrastructure Existing and future transport connections within Greater Cambridge have been identified to inform the compilation of the strategic spatial options, supporting the NPPF principle of integrating development with transport infrastructure.

Existing transport connections are identified on Map 1a. in Appendix 8.

Further to this and as shown on Map 3a. at Appendix 8, a number of transport infrastructure schemes are proposed in order to support ongoing growth around

Greater Cambridge and the wider area, creating six current or future public transport corridors radiating out from Cambridge as set out below. Awareness of these six corridors, including the level of certainty of delivery of schemes, has been taken into account in compiling the options (schemes within Cambridge urban area have been identified for completeness but have not informed compilation of options).

Cambridge urban area • Medium term future (~2031): Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) City Access projects • Shorter term future (~2025): Cambridge South Station • Longer term future (~2030): Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM) tunnels section

North of Cambridge • Existing/shorter term future (~2025): Waterbeach Station/Waterbeach New Town station on Kings Lynn to Kings Cross rail line • Shorter term future (~2025): GCP Waterbeach to Cambridge North scheme

East of Cambridge • Shorter term future (~2026): GCP Cambridge Eastern Gateway scheme • Longer term future (2030+?): CAM East Regional route to Mildenhall • Longer term future (~2030?): improvements to rail line to Newmarket

South East of Cambridge • Existing: Cambridge to Liverpool Street rail line • Shorter term future (~2025): GCP Cambridge South East Transport Scheme • Longer term future (2030+?): CAM South East regional route to Haverhill

South West of Cambridge • Existing: Cambridge to Kings Cross rail line

West of Cambridge • Shorter term future (~2025): GCP Cambourne to Cambridge scheme • Longer term future (~2030): East West Rail line with station at Cambourne • Longer term future (2030+?): CAM West regional route to St Neots

North West of Cambridge • Existing: Cambridgeshire Guided Busway to St Ives

3.3.1.2. Existing employment locations Existing scientific and other employment locations have been mapped to support identification of development opportunities close to them, addressing the NPPF spatial principle of locating jobs and homes in close proximity. Existing employment locations are identified on Map 3a. in Appendix 8.

3.3.1.3. Existing services Mapping of existing services in villages in particular supports the NPPF spatial principle of incorporating assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. As a proxy for identifying the services themselves, South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 settlement category designations of Rural Centres, Minor Rural Centres, Group Villages and Infill Villages have been used.

3.3.1.4. Environmental opportunities The Greater Cambridge Local Plan Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping will in due course identify broad priority zones for green infrastructure. The relationship of these priority areas with the strategic spatial options set out in this paper will be considered in order to inform discussion around a preferred option.

3.3.2. Constraints 3.3.2.1. Delivery rates Overview To account for the NPPF requirement for Local Plans to be deliverable, housing delivery assumptions have been incorporated into the strategic options, and as such are a constraint on the level of growth that can be delivered within the plan period of 2020-2041. Evidence of historic housing delivery rates for different types of development have been used to inform the assumptions included in the strategic options. Reference to the specific assumptions arising is made in the relevant sections under 3.4.4 Where? Establishing sources of new supply. The approach to

delivery assumptions is set out in full for homes in Appendix 6 and for jobs in Appendix 7.

Strategic sites delivery in relation to plan period Notwithstanding the need to account for what can be delivered by the end of the plan period, the build out of a new settlement of several thousand homes will continue across more than one plan period. Depending on the assumptions for build out rates, any new strategic sites allocated in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan might only deliver a proportion of their new homes by 2041, at which point it would make up a certain proportion of overall growth within the plan period. However, by the time it had been completed, that new strategic site would form a much larger proportion of the overall pattern of development within Greater Cambridge. Jobs at new settlements will also be delivered throughout their development, with only a proportion anticipated by 2041.

To account for the dual needs - of ensuring that options are deliverable to 2041, while maintaining awareness of the overall impact of options once all development is built out, the options tables for homes in the Strategic spatial options numbers for testing section and the options table for jobs in Appendix 7 show development figures for homes and jobs to 2041 and homes and jobs ‘all built out’.

Enabling sustainable choices In relation to the dual needs set out above, while it is clearly realistic and therefore reasonable to use historic housing delivery rates in principle to inform the distribution of growth in the strategic spatial options, using these in early testing under a maximum growth scenario led to unrealistic and unreasonable spatial choices to support a deliverable plan to 2041.

For example, using such historic rates would mean that, say, ten new settlements would be needed to provide sufficient delivery to achieve the maximum option by 2041, which it would clearly be unrealistic to deliver simultaneously. Further to this, considering sustainability objectives would suggest it would be more sustainable to concentrate growth in a smaller number of locations which could support greater infrastructure provision and generate greater critical population mass. This challenge

is also relevant, albeit to a lesser extent, when distributing growth for the minimum and medium options.

As such, it is considered that the maximum growth scenario is only reasonable if delivery rates can be increased beyond historic rates. The Councils do not currently have evidence to demonstrate that a step change increase in delivery rates is achievable. As such, achieving this would likely require a significantly different model of delivery. Further evidence on this will be provided by the Housing Delivery Study referred to elsewhere in this document.

Drawing on the above, while the distribution of growth under the minimum and medium growth scenarios relates to cautious historic delivery rates as used in published housing trajectory calculations, the distribution of growth under the maximum growth scenario relates to higher delivery rates evidenced in specific locations within Greater Cambridge. To reiterate, the Councils do not have evidence to demonstrate that a step change increase in delivery rates is achievable. Further exploration of whether and how such an increase could be achieved will be required before pursuing this approach further through the plan process.

Relationship of 10% buffer and assumed delivery rates Following NPPF principles a 10% buffer has been added to the homes requirement under each growth scenario to provide a flexible plan. Clearly were this buffer not to be applied the balance to find under each scenario would be lower, making each scenario easier to complete using historic delivery rates. However, given that the final plan will likely have to provide for a buffer to ensure flexibility, it is considered reasonable to explore at this point the impacts of growth options including a buffer, which therefore brings with it the challenges explored above regarding delivery rates.

Further detail on delivery rates is set out for each source of supply at 3.4.4 Where? Establishing sources of new supply.

3.3.2.2. Environmental constraints Environmental constraints provide a rough visual guide to where would be appropriate or not to locate development when considered at a strategic level. The list of environmental constraints considered include:

Absolute constraints • Flood Zones • Special Areas of Conservation • Sites of Special Scientific Interest • Historic Parks and Gardens • County Wildlife Sites • Country Parks • Ancient Woodlands

Constraints to consider • Conservation Areas • Listed Buildings • Scheduled Ancient Monuments • Sites safeguarded for minerals

A range of baseline mapping is included in the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report, which is also relevant, particularly regarding development constraints. Environmental constraints are identified in the figures included within Greater Cambridge Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report.

3.4. Outline approach The approach to identifying growth levels and strategic spatial options includes the following steps when considering homes and jobs. Key assumptions and constraints for each step are set out in detail in the sections below.

3.4.1 Establishing the Baseline The first step in this process is to document the baseline, capturing the current situation regarding the distribution of homes and jobs. A baseline paper, setting out the total amount and location of existing population, homes and jobs across Greater

Cambridge is included in Appendix 5. Maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of existing development, and are included in Appendix 8.

A key feature for this plan is the level of development already committed. The Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020) sets out anticipated delivery from existing housing commitments that have been assessed as either deliverable and / or developable, based on the definitions in the glossary of the NPPF (February 2019). The Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report 2018-2019 (August 2020) sets out business land and floorspace commitments. There are high levels of existing employment commitments, from existing allocations or land with planning permission.

3.4.2 How much? – Establishing the number of homes to find The sections below set out the steps taken to identify the housing growth needing to be identified through new allocations.

Homes Stage Step Minimum Medium Maximum A: Growth requirement Homes requirement 36,603 41,915 56,935 B: Growth requirement Homes requirement + 40,263 46,106 62,629 + flexibility buffer 10% buffer (B = A x 1.1) C: Existing Permissions and 30,807 30,807 30,807 commitments adopted allocations D: Windfall allowance Windfall allowance 5,600 5,600 5,600 3,856 9,699 26,222 E: Balance to be made E = B – (C+D) (rounded to (rounded to (rounded to in new allocations 3,900) 9,700) 26,300)

A: Growth requirement Minimum, medium and maximum options are proposed for testing as set out in the 1.3.1. Identifying growth level options section. Please note that while the requirement and commitments figures set out above are unrounded, for the purposes of identifying the strategic options the balance to find has been rounded up to the nearest 100 dwellings.

Further work required • Outputs from the Housing Delivery Study regarding delivery rates of different types of site and overall ability to deliver dwelling numbers. • Outputs from various other workstreams that will clarify environmental capacity and therefore ability to accommodate growth e.g. Water Cycle Strategy.

Sensitivity testing Further sensitivity tests (as set out above at 1.3.1 Growth levels for testing) could be added at a later stage to consider: • Deliverability led scenario if the maximum growth level was shown to be beyond deliverable numbers, or subject to environmental constraints.

B: 10% buffer As noted above at 3.2 Spatial principles, NPPF paragraph 11a requires that “plans should…be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change”. To respond to this, a buffer of 10% is added to the relevant housing growth requirement under each scenario.

C: Existing commitments The amount of housing committed in Greater Cambridge for 2019-2033 is set out in the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020). The housing trajectory also identifies the anticipated completions in 2019-2020 and highlights the number of remaining dwellings that will be delivered post 2033 from the adopted allocations and sites with planning permission. Assumptions have been made for the delivery of these sites post 2033.

Based on the assumption that the completions predicted for 2019-2020 will be delivered as anticipated in the housing trajectory, for the plan period of 2020-2041, it is anticipated that 30,043 dwellings (net) will be delivered in Greater Cambridge from housing commitments consisting of adopted allocations and sites with planning permission.

However, within this, there is some uncertainty regarding twelve adopted allocations in Cambridge that are anticipated to deliver 736 dwellings by 2041, and this does not

take account of any dwellings from the outline planning application (with a planning committee resolution to grant planning permission) for up to 1,500 dwellings at the Wellcome Genome Campus.

For the purposes of considering the spatial development strategy options for testing, the Councils have excluded the anticipated delivery from the adopted Cambridge allocations where no progress has been made and included the anticipated delivery from the Wellcome Genome Campus development in the commitments. This results in the following:

Anticipated Anticipated Cambridge Wellcome TOTAL Completions Completions allocations, Genome 2020-2033 2033-2041 with no Campus progress towards delivery 23,797 6,246 -736 1,500 30,807

The distribution of these commitments is as follows:

Percentage Cambridge Urban Area 6.4% Edge of Cambridge 26.0% New Settlements (including Cambourne West and 55.6% Wellcome Genome Campus) Rural Area 12.1%

Further information on the methodology used to calculate the amount and location of housing commitments is set out in Appendix 5.

D: Windfall allowance The NPPF provides guidance on the consideration of housing windfall sites.

In the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply (November 2019) document, the Councils reviewed and updated their windfall allowances to enable them to anticipate housing delivery from housing developments

that are not allocated and do not currently have planning permission. Given the different nature of the two local authority areas as either predominantly urban or predominantly rural, the windfall allowances for each area have been calculated separately. However, in reviewing the windfall allowances, the Councils have consolidated the two slightly different methodologies so that they are consistent where possible.

The Councils consider that the following windfall allowances are appropriate for Greater Cambridge: • Cambridge, 130 dwellings per year. • South Cambridgeshire, 220 dwellings per year.

Based on the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020), the windfall allowances are included within anticipated delivery from 2025-2026 until the end of the plan period.

Further work required The Housing Delivery Study will consider the delivery of windfalls, and provide evidence for a future windfall allowance(s).

3.4.3 How much? – Identifying the number and location of jobs Counting homes, for the purposes of monitoring past delivery, and for estimating overall supply and future delivery, is relatively simple. In comparison, counting jobs is much more difficult for the following reasons: • Jobs change is subject to far more variables than house building, and as a result is volatile and fast changing. • Local Plans cannot make provision for jobs directly, but rather make provision for employment land (which can accommodate business floorspace, measured in square metres) to support jobs. As such it can only be estimated how many jobs such land might support. • Allocations for employment land in Local Plans only account for a relatively small proportion of overall jobs – employment allocations are for jobs in B use classes (covering office, research and development and industrial uses).

These don’t currently account for the very significant proportion of jobs arising in other population-driven sectors such as shops, leisure and education, although note that as of September 2020 there has been a reorganisation of use classes including the introduction of Use Class E replacing Use Class B.

The Greater Cambridge Employment Land and Economic Development Evidence Study (the ELR) explores the supply and demand for employment space in the Greater Cambridge area. It applies a range of methods, including the forecasts referenced earlier in this report, to consider the amount and type of floorspace needed in the area during the plan period. It reviews in detail the existing supply commitments, and considers whether they will meet the demand identified. It makes quantitative and qualitative recommendations, to provide a flexible supply, which encourages business growth and inward investment, and aligns with market feedback and past completions trends.

For the plan period, the ELR anticipates that 609,319 sqm (net) of business floorspace could be delivered in Greater Cambridge from business floorspace commitments consisting of adopted allocations and sites with planning permission, and the Wellcome Genome Campus expansion.

For the purposes of modelling transport impacts in particular, it is necessary to consider specific distributions of jobs (rather than likely delivery of floorspace) as jobs are a key determinant of travel patterns. The Councils have therefore provided distributions of B use class jobs for each spatial option to the transport modelling team, for them to apply alongside standard assumptions for population driven non B use jobs sectors. The total number of jobs in each spatial option matches the maximum, medium or low minimum level as appropriate, in order that the modelling provides consistent testing of total homes and job numbers across each of the spatial options.

Given the significant level of existing B use commitments, all B use jobs needed for each of the growth level options could be accommodated primarily from existing commitments (albeit the Councils recognise that there are nuances relating to specific use classes and geographical locations which may affect this). As it is 62

expected that new housing allocations or new settlements necessary to deliver the housing growth levels being considered would be accompanied by ‘B use’ jobs, officers amended the model inputs to reduce delivery of jobs on existing commitments and include delivery of jobs in new growth locations, while maintaining the same overall level of jobs for each spatial option and growth level.

The approach to completing this task is set out at Appendix 7.

3.4.4 Where? Establishing sources of new supply The following section sets out the full range of broad supply locations considered to exist in Greater Cambridge, and identifies assumptions about them, including: • Broad locations • Capacity • Availability • Delivery • Further evidence required for later stages of the plan-making process.

3.4.4.1 Densification supply - Cambridge urban area / new settlements Broad locations The most significant source of supply from densification of existing urban areas will come from Cambridge urban area.

Further to this, the last major brownfield site within Cambridge urban area is at North East Cambridge which is being taken forward separately via an Area Action Plan. This is not included in the commitments above, but is included as a specific site within the strategic options.

A further potential source of densification supply for the First Conversation consultation was assumed to be at the existing / in progress or planned new settlements of Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village.

Capacity For Cambridge Urban Area, an internal densification workshop was held in May 2020 to determine if there was additional capacity that could be added to the 14,000- dwelling baseline identified in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018. The workshop considered potential sites regardless of current use or proposed allocation. These sites included large employment and retail sites; low density areas of housing; undeveloped safeguarded land; and any other large sites/areas suitable to deliver housing.

A set of location-based typologies were compiled to help calculate the additional amount of housing that these sites could provide. These were based upon a set of typologies used in the Cambridge Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2013) and updated with input from the North East Cambridge Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment (2020).

Using the corresponding typology, applicable to the site’s location, the different densities were applied to each identified site, and any homes already counted in the commitments through allocations or planning permissions were deducted. A summary of the total additional capacity identified from these sites is provided in the table below.

Capacity source Low Medium High density density density 4,000 7,500 11,000

For North East Cambridge, capacity assumptions suggest that this site could provide around 8,300 dwellings and 20,000 ‘B use’ jobs in total.

Officers have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided at North East Cambridge will be all B1 uses, based on the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (July 2020). The area will include B2 and B8 uses, but no additional jobs will be provided, although existing businesses may be re-located within the area.

Availability North East Cambridge is being actively promoted by developers, and is being progressed via the Area Action Plan process. On the other hand, full development is subject to the separate relocation consent process for the Waste Water Treatment Works.

Around 2,000 dwellings have been proposed to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites in Cambridge’s urban area. Sites considered through the Densification Study are in addition to these proposals, and availability of such sites will need to be established before progressing to the next stage of the Local Plan process.

Delivery For Cambridge urban area, making assumptions consistent with the delivery rates for edge of Cambridge sites and as set out in Appendix 6, results in the below capacity to 2041. These figures have been calculated using the same site by site detail as used to calculate the capacity, but with delivery rates applied to each site(s).

Capacity source Low Medium High density density density 3,780 5,600 6,830 (rounded (rounded down to down to 3,700) 6,800)

For North East Cambridge, taking information from the housing trajectory included in the draft Area Action Plan (July 2020) and making some assumptions for 2040-2041 suggests that 8,070 homes (rounded down to 8,000 homes) could be delivered within the plan period to 20416. This housing trajectory in the draft Area Action Plan assumes much higher annual build out rates than historically assumed for strategic

6 The housing trajectory in the draft Area Action Plan only considers a plan period to 2040 and indicates that 8,000 dwellings could be delivered by then. For the purposes of this paper, it has been assumed that the 2040+ anticipated dwellings are delivered evenly over the five years from 2040 to 2045 and therefore that a further 70 dwellings could be delivered in 2040-2041, resulting in 8,070 dwellings anticipated by 2041. 65

sites and assumes delivery soon after adoption of the Area Action Plan. The draft Area Action Plan explains that it takes account of ongoing engagement with landowners / developers, current expectations of the housing and employment market, efficient building processes such as modular housing, the housing types to be delivered, and housing tenures which support quick delivery such as build to rent. The draft Area Action Plan also highlights that the Councils are not advocating the housing trajectory as set out, but are instead seeking comments on it. Therefore, in light of this, for Minimum and Medium growth scenarios within all of the strategic options, delivery of North East Cambridge has been assumed to have the lead-in time and build out rates in line with other strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge.

In each of the strategic spatial options for testing, this paper makes clear which delivery assumption has been used for Cambridge urban area or North East Cambridge if it is included in that scenario.

Further work required • Through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment we will continue to develop the evidence regarding densification in Cambridge and new settlements. • The Strategic Heritage Impact Assessment will identify views/areas of Cambridge and its wider setting that are particularly sensitive to the development of taller buildings and identify assets where the impact of taller buildings on their significance would be harmful. • The Housing Delivery Study will provide a definitive perspective on lead in times and build out rates for new settlements and also other sites of different sizes and types based on their location.

3.4.4.2 Edge of Cambridge - non Green Belt Broad locations There is only one large scale brownfield site on the edge of Cambridge outside of the Green Belt: Land at Cambridge Airport.

Capacity testing of Green Belt locations (explained below) identified further capacity, but these did not comprise large enough unconstrained parcels which could

contribute to a non-site specific source of supply on the edge of Cambridge for the purposes of this strategic options testing.

Capacity Land at Cambridge Airport was taken out of the Green Belt as part of Cambridge East Area Action Plan, and is safeguarded for development in the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans 2018. The Area Action Plan identified that this site would be suitable for a new urban quarter of approximately 10,000 to 12,000 dwellings. Permission has since been granted at Land North of Newmarket Road also known as Wing or Marleigh (1,300 homes) and the Councils’ planning committee has resolved to grant planning permission for Land North of Cherry Hinton (1,200 homes). Taking these homes off the maximum of 12,000 dwellings assumed to be located at Cambridge East produces an estimated residual capacity of 9,500 homes on the edge of Cambridge outside of the Green Belt.

For the purposes of testing the strategic spatial options, it has been assumed that that 675 existing ‘B use’ jobs will be lost from this site if the spatial option includes Cambridge Airport as a location for new growth, and that up to 5,000 new ‘B use’ jobs will be re-provided within the new development depending on the level of growth anticipated on this site. Officers have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided at Cambridge Airport will largely be B1 uses, with a small proportion of B2 and B8 uses.

Availability Land at Cambridge Airport is being actively promoted by the landowner through the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In addition to this site, around 1,500 dwellings have been proposed to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites on the edge of Cambridge outside of the Green Belt.

Delivery Based on approximately 7.5 years from allocation to first completions and delivery rates of 250 dwellings a year, as set out at Appendix 6, it is anticipated that 1,935 homes (rounded down to 1,900 homes) could be completed at Cambridge Airport by 2041.

However, to deliver the maximum housing growth scenario for Greater Cambridge and a development strategy by 2041 that could be considered sustainable, higher build out rates than previously achieved will be needed. Taking a reasonable approach to this principle, by continuing to assume approximately 7.5 years from allocation to first completions, but doubling the build out rate for Cambridge Airport to 500 dwellings per year, results in anticipated delivery at Cambridge Airport by 2041 of 3,870 homes (rounded down to 3,800 homes).

Continuing to assume a lead in time of approximately 7.5 years for Cambridge Airport, also means that based on the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020) the existing parts of Cambridge East that are already coming forwards at land north of Newmarket Road and land north of Cherry Hinton will have been completed before Cambridge Airport starts delivering.

At 2.1 strategic spatial options for testing, this paper makes clear whether the historic or higher delivery rates have been used for Cambridge Airport if it is included in that scenario.

Further work required • Further capacity testing of this site will be undertaken as part of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment. • The Housing Delivery Study will provide a definitive perspective on lead in times and build out rates for strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge.

3.4.4.3 Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt Broad Locations The aim of testing at this stage will be to consider the relative sustainability of meeting development needs on the edge of Cambridge. Specific areas or sites will not be identified. Instead testing will consider levels of development and broad locations.

Capacity Theoretical capacity for edge of Cambridge – Green Belt has been established using a high-level evidence-based approach, as explained below.

The approach taken includes drawing a buffer from the edge of the Built Up Area of Cambridge (based on the approximate furthest distance from Cambridge City boundary to the furthest point of largest edge of Cambridge committed site), and then removing land affected by commitments, environmental constraints, and major roads.

Given the intention of identifying a maximum capacity for the Green Belt, the capacity identified implies that development in this source of supply could adjoin the development frameworks of villages that lie within the Green Belt. While this is against the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt, it is considered that this is a realistic result of testing this option to its full extent. In compiling the options care has been taken to avoid double counting of capacity, such that, for example, the focus on Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt option does not include any development at the villages source of supply.

This approach has identified a maximum capacity of 40,080 dwellings.

The currently adopted Local Plans and the previously adopted plans allocated land for housing within three/four areas of the edge of Cambridge – North West Cambridge (approximately 3,000 dwellings) and NIAB (approximately 2,780 dwellings), Cambridge East (approximately 2,500 dwellings), and Cambridge Southern Fringe (approximately 3,900 dwellings).

Cambridge Southern Fringe, which consists of Trumpington Meadows, Glebe Farm, Clay Farm and Bell School, is the furthest advanced in terms of delivery and therefore can be used to inform assumptions for new sites on the edge of Cambridge. These four smaller sites on the southern edge of Cambridge are anticipated to deliver approximately 3,900 dwellings when wholly completed on approximately 98 hectares of land, therefore an average density of approximately 40 dwellings per hectare.

The maximum capacity of 40,080 dwellings would therefore equate to about 10 additional sites/broad locations on the edge of Cambridge that are the same size as 69

Cambridge Southern Fringe. Officer judgement suggests that within the strategic options testing it would not be reasonable to test more than six new strategic sites of approximately 3,900 dwellings on the edge of Cambridge as an absolute maximum, providing a total of 23,400 dwellings. Therefore as there is one new strategic site on the edge of Cambridge outside the Green Belt at Cambridge Airport, where that is included in a spatial option, only a maximum of five sites of approximately 3,900 dwellings on the edge of Cambridge within the Green Belt should be included in the spatial option, providing a total of 19,500 dwellings.

Availability Around 22,000 dwellings have been proposed to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites on the edge of Cambridge within the Green Belt. This suggests that the independently derived capacity figure is not unreasonable to test as being potentially available.

However, to deliver the maximum housing growth scenario for Greater Cambridge and a development strategy by 2041 that could be considered to be sustainable, higher build out rates than previously achieved will be needed. Taking a reasonable approach to this principle, by continuing to assume approximately 7.5 years from allocation to first completions, but doubling the build out rate for each of the sites / broad locations to 500 dwellings per year, results in anticipated delivery by 2041 of 3,870 homes (rounded down to 3,800 homes).

At 2.1 Description of the strategic spatial options, this paper makes clear whether the historic or higher delivery rates have been used for any new sites / broad locations within the Green Belt on the edge of Cambridge if one or more of these developments have been included in that scenario.

Further work required • The Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment will provide a definitive perspective of capacity on the edge of Cambridge within the Green Belt. • The Housing Delivery Study will provide a definitive perspective on lead in times and build out rates for strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge. • A detailed study of the Cambridge Green Belt will be carried out, to identify the contribution land makes to Green Belt purposes, in order to understand the level of harm that would be caused by development in different areas of the Green Belt. This will be a key consideration when considering Green Belt land release later in the plan process.

3.4.4.4 New settlements (stand-alone) Broad Locations No assumption has been made as to the location of such new settlements other than in broad locations. The assessment does however make assumptions regarding the transport and other services that they would have available.

Given NPPF spatial principles, set out at 3.2 Spatial principles, it is considered that the most sustainable locations for new settlements is along existing or proposed public transport corridors. Beyond this, consideration has also been given to opportunity locations for new settlements close to the strategic road network but not on public transport corridors.

For the purposes of options testing it is assumed that there might be opportunities for seven new settlements sited on the public transport corridors identified at 3.3.1.1 Existing and planned transport infrastructure (including new settlement-scale expansions to committed new settlements). Further to this, it is assumed that there might be potential for one new settlement close to the road network but not on a public transport corridor.

Capacity Further work has been completed to identify the scale of new settlement options for testing (see Appendix 4). This includes consideration of the relative sustainability of different new settlement sizes. The key outcomes of this work include: • recommendation that a settlement of around 4,500 homes would be the minimum to be sustainable in Greater Cambridge and that the most sustainable option is to provide settlements of at least this size even in proximity to Cambridge. • Notwithstanding the above, it is acknowledged that the location and pattern of development of new communities will influence the appropriate size and smaller developments may be appropriate in certain circumstances. • Larger settlements are likely to be more sustainable to an extent, as they are likely to be more self-contained, although the goal of self-containment needs to be approached with a degree of realism.

Drawing on the above, within the strategic options two scales of new settlement have been included: 4,500 homes, reflecting the recommendation from Appendix 4, and 9,000 homes, reflecting the further recommendation that larger settlements are likely to be more sustainable. While officers are not aware of evidence supporting specific higher thresholds, 9,000 – doubling 4,500 is considered a reasonable larger size, since it is similar to Northstowe or Waterbeach New Town in scale. In addition, within the options, further expansion of development at committed new settlements is also considered at Cambourne, in increments of 4.500 and 9,000 homes in addition to dwellings already existing or committed. This results in a settlement of the following sizes at Cambourne: • completions and commitments + 4,500 dwellings = 11,300 (and close to further development of 3,500 at Bourn Airfield New Village) • completions and commitments + 9,000 dwellings = 15,800 (and close to further development of 3,500 at Bourn Airfield New Village)

For the purposes of testing the strategic spatial options, a new settlement of 9,000 new homes is anticipated to deliver up to 2,500 new jobs in ‘B uses’ and a new settlement of 4,500 new homes is anticipated to deliver up to 1,500 new jobs in ‘B uses’, depending on the level of growth anticipated at each new settlement. Officers

have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided at new settlements will largely be B1 uses, with a small proportion of B2 and B8 uses.

Availability Around 127,000 homes have been proposed at new settlement locations to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites. This suggests that availability is not a constraint on delivery of new settlements.

Delivery Notwithstanding the seven opportunities for new settlements suggested above, officer judgement suggests that within the strategic options testing it would not be reasonable to test more than four new settlements within South Cambridgeshire as an absolute maximum, on the basis that: • four new settlements are currently being progressed through the planning system (Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach New Town, Bourn Airfield New Village), suggesting that there is administrative and delivery capacity to progress this number of new settlements simultaneously within the district; but • the committed new settlements referred to above will continue to build out across future plan periods, such that new settlements identified through the Greater Cambridge Local Plan would be in addition to the four already being progressed simultaneously. It is therefore not considered reasonable to test more than four new settlements, in addition to those already being delivered.

Deliverability will also be a key consideration in relation to new settlements. Based on approximately 5 years from allocation to first completions and delivery rates of 250 dwellings a year, as set out at Appendix 6, it is anticipated that 2,560 homes (rounded down to 2,500 homes) could be completed at each new settlement by 2041.

Using the above delivery assumptions, under a high growth scenario in relevant options several new settlements might be required to meet a target for the plan period 2020-2041. Therefore, to deliver the maximum housing growth scenario for Greater Cambridge and a development strategy by 2041 that could be considered sustainable, higher build out rates than previously achieved will be needed. Taking a

reasonable approach to this principle, by continuing to assume approximately 5 years from allocation to first completions, but doubling the build out rate for each of the new settlements to 500 dwellings per year, results in anticipated delivery by 2041 of 5,120 homes (rounded down to 5,100 homes).

At 2.1 Description of the strategic options, this paper makes clear whether the historic or higher delivery rates have been used for any new settlements if one or more new settlements have been included in that scenario.

Additional delivery at committed new settlements (higher delivery rates) For the existing committed new settlements, the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020) with a continuation of the existing build out rates for 2033 to 2041, anticipates that there is none or very little additional capacity for delivery from these sites beyond what is already included in the commitments. However, to deliver the maximum housing growth scenario for Greater Cambridge and a development strategy by 2041 that could be considered to be sustainable, higher build out rates than previously achieved will be needed.

Assuming that Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town can deliver higher build out rates than have been achieved in the past on new settlements (but which have been demonstrated on the edge of Cambridge), these existing commitments could deliver more dwellings within the plan period. Assuming that phases 2 and 3 of Northstowe, and the whole of Waterbeach New Town, can deliver up to 500 dwellings a year, these developments could deliver a further 3,819 homes and 4,000 additional homes respectively, without any additional land.

Assuming that Bourn Airfield New Village and Cambourne West can deliver higher build out rates than have been assumed in the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020), and therefore at similar build out rates to those assumed in the housing trajectory for other strategic sites, these existing commitments could again deliver more dwellings with the plan period. Assuming that the whole of each of these developments can deliver up to 300 dwellings a year, Bourn Airfield New Village could deliver 870 additional homes whereas Cambourne West would not deliver any additional homes, without any additional land. 74

Overall, a further 8,689 dwellings could be delivered from the existing committed new settlements by 2041. This has been rounded down to 8,600 dwellings when used within the options. Further detailed information is provided in Appendix 6.

Following the same principles, 1,840 additional ‘B use’ jobs would be provided by 2041 (as set out in Appendix 7).

Further work required: • Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment and Broad Location Study to identify potential options and therefore guide scale of potential new settlements to consider. • The Housing Delivery Study will provide a definitive perspective on lead in times and build out rates for new settlements.

3.4.4.5 Villages Locations Options testing makes assumptions regarding the distribution of village growth around South Cambridgeshire villages. This takes a broad locations approach, assuming growth levels at different types of villages7.

The different categories of villages are described below, with the number of villages within each category identified in brackets8:

Rural Centres (5) The largest, most sustainable villages of the district. They have good access to a secondary school (either within the village or accessible by good public transport), employment opportunities, a variety of services and facilities and have good public transport services to Cambridge or a market town.

7 Note that any expansion of a village to form a new settlement would form part of the new settlements option. 8 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, Chapter 2 – Spatial Strategy 75

Minor Rural Centres (13) These have a lower level of services, facilities and employment than Rural Centres, but a greater level than most other villages in South Cambridgeshire, and often perform a role in terms of providing services and facilities for a small rural hinterland.

Group villages (32) Generally less sustainable locations for new development than Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres, having fewer services and facilities allowing only some of the basic day-to-day requirements of their residents to be met without the need to travel outside the village. All Group Villages have at least a primary school.

Infill villages (56) Generally amongst the smallest villages in South Cambridgeshire. These villages have a poor range of services and facilities and it is often necessary for local residents to travel outside the village for most of their daily needs. These villages generally lack any food shops, have no primary school and may not have a permanent post office or a village hall or meeting place.

Beyond these categories, in compiling the different scenarios, consideration has also been given to whether villages are fundamentally constrained by environmental constraints, whether they are in or outside of the Green Belt, and their location or not at nodes along public transport corridors.

Villages within and outside of the Green Belt As set out at 3.2 Spatial principles, different options either account for or ignore Green Belt boundaries. Villages’ location within or outside of the Green Belt has been taken into account when compiling options that account for Green Belt boundaries.

Villages on public transport corridors Nineteen villages have been identified as located at existing or potential nodes along transport corridors. This information has informed the compilation of the Public Transport Corridor option in particular.

Capacity Officer judgement has been used to identify what might be reasonable capacity assumptions at the different types of villages.

Availability Around 56,000 dwellings have been submitted to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Call for Sites process at village locations. For the purposes of strategic options testing, availability of village sites is therefore not treated as a constraint at this point.

Delivery Within the rough judgements about capacity above, and the assumption that larger amounts of development in villages would be distributed across two or more sites, it is not anticipated that delivery rates would limit the amount of growth that could be distributed to villages.

Further work required: • Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment and Broad Location Study to identify scale of potential village growth options.

3.5. Compiling the strategic options for testing 3.5.1 Overview This section outlines the approach to compiling the strategic options for testing, which is the process of distributing the balance of growth to find in each option between the sources of supply, as per the tables at 2.2 Strategic spatial options numbers for testing.

In completing this task it is acknowledged that: • there are a large number of possible permutations of each reasonable spatial option • there is no single ‘right’ answer to identifying strategic options • strategic spatial options are explicitly non-site specific, and it is therefore important not to be overly precise in developing options

Given all of the above, the approach set out below to compiling the options draws on all of the relevant evidence described elsewhere in this document in order to avoid making unjustified assumptions, whilst accepting that officer judgement is involved.

The approach taken to compiling options brings together the following elements which are described in full below: • Spatial principles specific to each scenario - guiding the fundamental choices about where to locate development within the sources of supply • Spatial principles relevant to all scenarios - guiding and influencing choices about growth locations, and • Resulting distribution of development

3.5.2 Spatial principles – relevant to specific scenarios Whilst the purpose of an option may be to test maximising development at a certain type of location, it will not always be possible to meet the level of development being considered in that single location type. It will therefore be necessary to add growth in other locations to that scenario.

The benefits/purposes of each option therefore provide spatial principles which guide assumptions made about the location of growth within an area of supply. In particular these principles guide where growth should be located in each option when assumed capacity at the ‘focus of growth’ source of supply has been exhausted.

For First Conversation options the benefits/purposes have been taken from the First Conversation itself. For additional options the benefits/purposes of the option are set out in Appendix 3: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options.

3.5.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios NPPF spatial principles not addressed elsewhere in this document are set out below. For each option an explanation is provided as to whether and how the option addresses that principle: • Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure. • When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. • Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites, to support maintaining a five-year housing land supply. As noted elsewhere in this paper, distributing a large proportion of the growth requirement to lots of smaller sites may not support Climate Act requirements to support zero carbon targets. Given that the Act is a statutory requirement in tension with national policy requirements, options are included that include greater concentrations of growth with fewer smaller sites, on the basis that it may better support the achievement of zero carbon. • Green Belt assumption – an explanation of the approach taken to Green Belt is included for each option.

3.5.4 Resulting distribution of development For each option and each growth scenario, the balance to find is distributed across the sources of supply as informed by the spatial principles referred to above.

3.6. Strategic options – principles governing distribution This section describes, for each strategic spatial option and growth scenario, the principles governing the distribution of growth between the sources of supply. The actual distribution is described in section 2.1, and set out in numerical terms in section 2.2.

3.6.1 Spatial Scenario 1: Focus on Densification of existing urban areas 3.6.1.1 Description This approach would focus new homes and jobs within Cambridge, because it is the main urban area and centre for services and facilities. The primary location for development within the urban area is at North East Cambridge: the last major brownfield site within Cambridge urban area is at North East Cambridge which is being taken forward separately via an Area Action Plan.

3.6.1.2 Spatial principles/benefits A. Reduces the need to use greenfield land to accommodate growth. B. Living in central, well-connected and vibrant areas is important for many people. C. Reduces the need to travel by car and so makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change. D. Sites growth near to existing centres, which can continue to support their vitality and viability.

Resulting option assumptions Sources of supply bringing the most similar benefits (see letter references for shared benefits) - and therefore next sources of supply to be considered under scenarios where more growth needs to be found - in order, are:

• Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt (A, C, D) • Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt (C, D) • New settlements on public transport corridors (C)

3.6.1.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure By locating growth in the urban area it is assumed that this will be close to existing infrastructure.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. Growth beyond the edge of Cambridge is located at new settlements of a scale that could generate demand for new services on public transport corridors.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites This option focuses development in Cambridge urban area, some of which is likely to come forward via smaller sites. The spatial principles associated with this option do not support locating development at village sites within this option.

Green Belt assumption The purpose of this option is to focus growth in and as close to the urban area of Cambridge as a sustainable location. Green Belt constraints have therefore not been accounted for in compiling this option.

3.6.2 Spatial Scenario 2: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt 3.6.2.1 Description This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, using land not in the green belt. The only large site on the edge of Cambridge not in the Green Belt is Cambridge Airport.

3.6.2.2 Spatial principles/benefits A. Benefits from the services and infrastructure at the existing centre, maximising the potential for sustainable transport. B. Large scale urban extensions present the opportunity for new on-site infrastructure, such as schools, local centres and green spaces that can bring benefits to the existing and new community.

C. Cambridge Airport has previously been identified as suitable location for a new urban quarter to Cambridge and was removed from the Green Belt in earlier plans. It is identified as safeguarded land for longer term development in the 2018 Local Plans if it becomes available. D. Makes use of brownfield land.

• Cambridge urban area (A, ~B, D)

o NB only North East Cambridge is included within this option as a source of supply, as additional sites within Cambridge do not share B above. • Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt (A, B, but the Green Belt status of this source of supply is contradictory to the purpose of testing this option, so this source is ignored) • New settlements on public transport corridors (A, B)

3.6.2.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure By locating growth in the urban area it is assumed that this will be close to existing infrastructure.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. The purpose of this option is to base the sustainability of a settlement on its access to existing or proposed transport infrastructure. As such, the settlement hierarchy status of villages has been discounted for the purpose of this option.

Green Belt assumption Given that the explicit purpose of this option is to test the impacts of growth outside of the Green Belt, within this option all development is located outside of Green Belt boundaries.

3.6.3 Spatial Scenario 3: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt 3.6.3.1 Description This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, involving release of land from the Green Belt.

3.6.3.2 Spatial principles/benefits A. Benefits from the services and infrastructure at the existing centre, maximising the potential for sustainable transport. B. Large scale urban extensions present the opportunity for new on-site infrastructure, such as schools, local centres and green spaces that can bring benefits to the existing and new community.

Resulting option assumptions Next sources of supply are not applicable – for this strategic spatial option the balance to find is met within the option focus source of supply under all growth level options.

3.6.3.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure The spatial principles relating to this option result in a pattern of development either close to existing or large enough to support new infrastructure.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. Not applicable – no development has been located within the rural area for this option.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites The spatial principles associated with this option do not support locating development at village sites within this option. The high growth scenario for this option includes development in Cambridge urban area, some of which is likely to come forward via smaller sites.

Green Belt assumption Given that the explicit purpose of this option is to test the impacts of growth within the Green Belt, Green Belt boundaries have been ignored for the purposes of this option.

3.6.4 Spatial Scenario 4: Focus on New Settlements 3.6.4.1 Description New settlements would establish a whole new town or village, providing homes, jobs and supporting infrastructure in a new location, and would need to be supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge.

3.6.4.2 Spatial principles/benefits A. Provides an opportunity for significant new infrastructure to be delivered. B. Provides an opportunity for substantial growth in a new location connected to the transport network. C. May avoid removing land from the Green Belt

3.6.4.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure It is assumed that new settlements will be located on existing or proposed public transport corridors.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. Not relevant – to an extent, new settlements will be of a sufficient size to generate their own services.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites This option provides an opportunity for substantial growth in a new location connected to the transport network, which thereby provides an opportunity for significant new infrastructure to be delivered. As such it is not considered appropriate to include village sites within this option.

Green Belt assumption Given that one of the benefits of this option is that it may avoid removing land from the Green Belt, for the purposes of this option it is assumed that no development takes place within the Green Belt.

3.6.5 Spatial Scenario 5: Focus on Dispersal: Villages 3.6.5.1 Description This approach would spread new homes and jobs out to the villages.

3.6.5.2 Spatial principles – relevant to specific scenario A. Can help to sustain existing facilities and infrastructure in the village. B. Can help provide for a diversity of population in the village.

Resulting option assumptions Distribute growth across all villages to fully test the implications of dispersal.

Next sources of supply are not applicable – for this strategic spatial option the balance to find is met within the option focus source of supply under all growth level options.

3.6.5.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure Allocate new growth proportionate to level of facilities and services as measured by South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 settlement category designation.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure. Allocate new growth proportionate to level of facilities and services as measured by South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 settlement category designation.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites By definition this option includes small sites. Given that this option is specifically intended to test the impacts of dispersal, it is not considered appropriate to apply Climate Act implications to this option.

Green Belt assumption Given that the purpose of this option is to test dispersal of growth to its full extent, Green Belt constraints have not been accounted for.

3.6.6 Spatial Scenario 6: Focus on Public transport corridors 3.6.6.1 Description This approach would focus homes and jobs along key public transport corridors and around transport hubs, extending out from Cambridge. This could be by expanding or intensifying existing settlements, or with more new settlements.

3.6.6.2 Spatial principles – relevant to specific scenario A. Concentrates development on transport corridors where there are opportunities for high quality public transport. B. Supports expansion of economic benefits outwards from Cambridge.

Resulting option assumptions Within the primary sources of supply for this option:

• North East Cambridge (as a development opportunity located in Cambridge urban area on an existing public transport corridor) • Distribute growth across new settlement opportunities and villages sited on or close to existing or proposed public transport hubs/nodes. • Take account of public transport nodes rather than corridors per se. In particular this affects consideration of East West Rail which is intended to only include one new station within South Cambridgeshire – at Cambourne.

Next sources of supply are not applicable – for this strategic spatial option the balance to find is met within the option focus source of supply under all growth level options.

3.6.6.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure The definition of this option is to locate growth near public transport hubs.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites Including some growth at villages in this option should help support provision of smaller sites.

Green Belt assumption The purpose of this option is to consider the sustainability of focusing growth along transport corridors radiating out from Cambridge, which will likely result in Green Belt

development. Green Belt constraints have therefore not been accounted for in compiling this option.

3.6.7 Spatial Scenario 7: Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster) 3.6.7.1 Description This approach would focus new homes close to existing and committed jobs within the life sciences cluster area around the south of Cambridge, including homes at existing villages and at new settlements.

3.6.7.2 Spatial principles – relevant to specific scenario A. Supports the continued success of the life sciences cluster area around the south of Cambridge. B. Sites growth near to existing centres of employment, potentially reducing the need to travel by car and so making a positive contribution to addressing climate change. C. Could support housing availability within the area south of Cambridge, an issue highlighted by employers within the area.

Resulting option assumptions Within the primary sources of supply for this option:

• Distribute growth across new settlement opportunities and villages sited on or close to existing or proposed public transport hubs/nodes. • Take account of public transport nodes rather than corridors per se.

Sources of supply bringing the most similar benefits (see letter references for shared benefits) - and therefore next sources of supply to be considered under scenarios where more growth needs to be found - in order, are:

• Edge of Cambridge – non-Green Belt (B) • Cambridge urban area (B)

3.6.7.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure New settlement location/s assumed to be on public transport corridors.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure Allocate new growth within villages proportionate to level of facilities and services as measured by South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 settlement category designation.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites Including some growth at villages in this option should help support provision of smaller sites, but this is constrained by the number of villages located within the southern cluster area.

Green Belt assumption The purpose of this option is to consider the sustainability of focusing growth close to existing and committed jobs which will likely result in Green Belt development. Green Belt constraints have therefore not been accounted for in compiling this option.

3.6.8 Spatial Scenario 8: Expanding a growth area around transport nodes 3.6.8.1 Description This approach would focus new homes at Cambourne and along the A428 public transport corridor, on the basis that Cambourne is due to be served by a new East West Rail station and that Cambourne and the villages along the corridor are due to be served by the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro.

3.6.8.2 Spatial principles – relevant to specific scenario A. Locates growth near to planned rail and metro public transport provision, potentially reducing the need to travel by car and so making a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

B. Locates growth close to existing centres of population or large-scale growth commitments, adding to the critical mass of population that could generate demand for further services and employment provision.

Resulting option assumptions Within the primary sources of supply for this option:

• Distribute growth across new settlement opportunities and villages sited on proposed public transport hubs/nodes. • Take account of public transport nodes rather than corridors per se. In particular this affects consideration of East West Rail which is intended to only include one new station within South Cambridgeshire – at Cambourne.

o NB only North East Cambridge is included within this option as a source of supply, as additional sites within Cambridge do not share B above. • Edge of Cambridge – non-Green Belt (B)

3.6.8.3 Spatial principles – relevant to all scenarios, and resulting option assumptions Within the constraints of each strategic option, locate growth close to existing/planned infrastructure New settlement location/s assumed to be at Cambourne, which is on a proposed public transport corridor.

When locating supply in rural areas, incorporate assumptions about locating growth first in settlements with the greatest range of services and access to infrastructure The purpose of this option is to base the sustainability of a settlement on its access to existing or proposed transport infrastructure. As such, the settlement hierarchy status of villages has been discounted for the purpose of this option.

Consider requirements for a proportion of smaller sites Including some growth at villages in this option should help support provision of smaller sites.

Green Belt assumption The purpose of this option is to consider the sustainability of focusing growth along transport corridors radiating out from Cambridge which will likely result in Green Belt development. Green Belt constraints have therefore not been accounted for in compiling this option.

List of appendices Appendix 1: Spatial principles informing identification of and assumptions within strategic spatial options (page 92)

Appendix 2: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options (page 149)

Appendix 3: Strategic growth proposals included in neighbouring Local Plans (page 281)

Appendix 4: Sustainable Settlement Sizes Review (page 287)

Appendix 5: Establishing the Baseline (page 353)

Appendix 6: Delivery assumptions for housing (page 368)

Appendix 7: Identifying the number and location of jobs for modelling purposes (page 378)

Appendix 8: Baseline, opportunities and constraints mapping (page 393)

Appendix 1: Spatial principles informing identification of and assumptions within strategic spatial options

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 principles Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions 2. Achieving 8 Achieving sustainable Options should seek sustainable development means that to take opportunities development the planning system has taken to secure net three overarching gains across each of objectives, which are the sustainable interdependent and need development to be pursued in mutually objectives (8) supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well- designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy. The 11 Plans and decisions should Growth options Account for any presumption apply a presumption in should provide for unmet needs arising in favour of favour of sustainable objectively assessed from neighbouring sustainable development. needs for housing areas (11) development and other uses – Be sufficiently flexible For plan-making this implies that such to adapt to rapid means that: assessments should change – see a) plans should positively be policy-off (11) commentary re. seek opportunities to meet flexibility buffer (11) the development needs of

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions their area, and be Take into account sufficiently flexible to adapt absolute to rapid change; environmental b) strategic policies should, constraints as set out as a minimum, provide for in NPPF footnote 6, objectively assessed needs such as habitat sites for housing and other uses, and flood risk, and as well as any needs that consider impact on cannot be met within significant policy neighbouring areas5, constraints such as unless: Green Belt (11) i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area6; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. Maintaining 24-27 In relation to tests a) and c) Take account of effective above, the NPPF sets out requests to take cooperation that: development needs Local planning authorities from a neighbouring and county councils (in authority. (27) two-tier areas) are under a Take account of duty to cooperate with neighbouring each other, and with other authority proposals to prescribed bodies, on locate strategic strategic matters that cross growth close to the administrative boundaries. boundary of Greater (NPPF paragraph 24) Cambridge. (24-27) Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, joint working should help to determine

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere (NPPF paragraph 26) Evidence 31 The preparation and review Strategic options of all policies should be should: underpinned by relevant Be informed by up to and up-to-date evidence. date evidence, which This should be adequate take into account and proportionate, focused market signals. (31) tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned, and take into account relevant market signals. Preparing and 32 Local plans and spatial Strategic option reviewing development strategies assumptions should plans should be informed seek to support throughout their economic, social and preparation by a environmental

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions sustainability appraisal that objectives (including meets the relevant legal opportunities for net requirements. This should gains). (32) demonstrate how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).

100

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions Examining 35 Plans are ‘sound’ if they Complete evidence Points raised at plans are (NPPF paragraph 35): on delivery rates (35) paragraphs 8,11, 24- a) Positively prepared – 27, 32, plus: providing a strategy which, c. deliverable over as a minimum, seeks to the plan period – meet the area’s objectively options should take assessed needs19; and is into account informed by agreements understanding of with other authorities, so delivery rates when that unmet need from considering neighbouring areas is reasonable growth accommodated where it is level options, and practical to do so and is when distributing consistent with achieving growth between sustainable development; options. (35) b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence; c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint

101

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework. Identifying 67, 73, 75 67. Planning policies Use up to date Take into account the land for should identify a supply of housing trajectory need to maintain a homes specific, deliverable sites evidence to inform five year housing for years one to five of the options assumptions supply when plan period. With an about delivery (67, distributing growth appropriate buffer, as set 73, 75) between sources of out in paragraph 73. supply in strategic options. (67, 73, 75) 73. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific

102

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing need where the strategic policies are more than five years old.

75. To maintain the supply of housing, local planning authorities should monitor progress in building out sites which have permission. Where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that delivery has fallen below 95% of the local planning authority’s housing requirement over the previous three years, the authority should

103

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions prepare an action plan in line with national planning guidance, to assess the causes of under-delivery and identify actions to increase delivery in future years. Small sites 68 Small and medium sized Integrate an sites can make an appropriate important contribution to assumption about meeting the housing small sites provision requirement of an area, within strategic and are often built-out options (although relatively quickly. To note Climate Act promote the development requirements of a good mix of sites local affecting this planning authorities should: assumption. (68) a) identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare;

104

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved; New 72 The supply of large Include strategic Complete evidence When considering Settlements numbers of new homes options that on sustainable broad areas for can often be best achieved incorporate larger communities sizes larger scale through planning for larger scale development. and locations in a development, scale development, such (72) Greater Cambridge consider relationship as new settlements or context. (72) with existing and/or significant extensions to planned existing villages and towns, infrastructure. (72) provided they are well Make realistic located and designed, and assumptions of likely supported by the rates of delivery of necessary infrastructure larger scale and facilities. Working with development (cf. the support of their need to maintain five communities, and with year land supply). other authorities if (72) appropriate, strategic policy-making authorities

105

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way. In doing so, they should: a) consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure, the area’s economic potential and the scope for net environmental gains; b) ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an unrealistic level of self-containment),

106

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions or in larger towns to which there is good access; c) set clear expectations for the quality of the development and how this can be maintained (such as by following Garden City principles), and ensure that a variety of homes to meet the needs of different groups in the community will be provided; d) make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead- in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development corporations); and e) consider whether it is appropriate to establish

107

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions Green Belt around or adjoining new developments of significant size. Rural growth 78 To promote sustainable Include strategic When locating and development in rural areas, options that growth in rural areas communities housing should be located incorporate rural in the strategic where it will enhance or growth. (78) options, consider maintain the vitality of rural opportunities to communities. Planning support local policies should identify services, perhaps in opportunities for villages to one location to grow and thrive, especially support services in where this nearby villages. (78) will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Economic 80 Planning policies and Growth options growth decisions should help evidence informed create the conditions in by Employment Land which businesses can Review which

108

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions invest, expand and adapt. considers potential Significant weight should for future growth in be placed on the need to Greater Cambridge support economic growth (80) and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. This is particularly important where Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation40, and in areas with high levels of productivity, which should be able to capitalise on their performance and potential.

109

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions Economic 82 Planning policies and Growth options locational decisions should recognise evidence informed requirements and address the specific by Employment Land locational requirements of Review which different sectors. This considers role of key includes making provision sectors and clusters for clusters or networks of in driving potential knowledge and data- future growth in driven, creative or high Greater Cambridge technology industries; and (82) for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations. Promote 91 Planning policies and Include strategic health and decisions should aim to options that support wellbeing achieve healthy, inclusive provision of new, or and safe places which: enable access to a) promote social existing, community interaction, including infrastructure (91) opportunities for meetings Include strategic between people who might options that enable not otherwise come into active travel (91) contact with each other –

110

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions for example through mixed- use developments, strong neighbourhood centres, street layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods, and active street frontages; b) are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion – for example through the use of clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas; and c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would

111

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions address identified local health and well-being needs – for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops, access to healthier food, allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling. Community 92 To provide the social, Include strategic infrastructure recreational and cultural options that support facilities and services the provision of new, or community needs, planning enable access to policies and decisions existing, community should: infrastructure (92) a) plan positively for the Include strategic provision and use of options that integrate shared spaces, community uses including housing facilities (such as local and employment (92) shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings,

112

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community; c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the

113

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions benefit of the community; and e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services. Transport 102 Transport issues should be Include strategic Within the constraints principles considered from the options explicitly of each strategic earliest stages of plan- relying on existing or option, locate growth making and development proposed transport closest to existing or proposals, so that: infrastructure (102) proposed transport a) the potential impacts of Include strategic infrastructure. (102) development on transport options that enable networks can be active travel and addressed; public transport b) opportunities from opportunities (102) existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised – for example in relation to the scale,

114

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions location or density of development that can be accommodated; c) opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued; d) the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains; and e) patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places.

115

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions Transport 103 The planning system Include strategic Within the constraints principles should actively manage options explicitly of each strategic patterns of growth in relying on existing or option, locate growth support of these objectives. proposed transport closest to existing or Significant development infrastructure (103) proposed transport should be focused on Include strategic infrastructure. (103) locations which are or can options that enable be made sustainable, active travel and through limiting the need to public transport travel and offering a opportunities (103) genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision- making.

116

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions Transport 104 Planning policies should: Within the constraints principles a) support an appropriate of each strategic mix of uses across an option, locate growth area, and within larger in locations that scale sites, to minimise the minimise the number number and length of and length of journeys needed for journeys needed for employment, shopping, employment, leisure, education and shopping, leisure, other activities; education and other b) be prepared with the activities. (104) active involvement of local highways authorities, other transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils, so that strategies and investments for supporting sustainable transport and development patterns are aligned; c) identify and protect, where there is robust evidence, sites and routes

117

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice and realise opportunities for large scale development; d) provide for high quality walking and cycling networks and supporting facilities such as cycle parking (drawing on Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans); Effective use 117 Planning policies and Include strategic Complete evidence of land decisions should promote options that make as about capacity of an effective use of land in much use as possible existing urban areas, meeting the need for of previously- including considering homes and other uses, developed or densification while safeguarding and ‘brownfield’ land. (117) opportunities. (117) improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively

118

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously- developed or ‘brownfield’ land. Density 122 122. Planning policies and Include strategic Complete evidence decisions should support options that are about capacity of development that makes focused on existing existing urban areas, efficient use of land, taking urban areas. (122) including considering into account: densification a) the identified need for opportunities. (122) different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; b) local market conditions and viability; c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and

119

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places. 123. Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make

120

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances: a) plans should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area and meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible. This will be tested robustly at examination, and should include the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport. These standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why

121

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions this would be inappropriate; b) the use of minimum density standards should also be considered for other parts of the plan area. It may be appropriate to set out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, rather than one broad density range; and c) local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or

122

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards). Design 127 Planning policies and Consider NPPF principles cf. decisions should ensure Design principles new that developments: when appraising development what a sustainable a) will function well and settlement size is. add to the overall quality of (127) the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and

123

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions appropriate and effective landscaping;

c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;

124

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and

f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well- being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users46; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. Green Belt 133 133. The Government Include strategic Complete evidence attaches great importance options that take about capacity of

125

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions to Green Belts. The account of existing existing urban areas, fundamental aim of Green Cambridge Green including considering Belt policy is to prevent Belt. (133) densification urban sprawl by keeping opportunities. (117) land permanently open; the Include strategic essential characteristics of options that consider Green Belts are their densifying existing openness and their urban areas (137) permanence.

134. Green Belt serves five purposes: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

126

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

136. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period.

127

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions 137. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies, which will take into account the preceding paragraph, and whether the strategy: a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of

128

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.

138. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development

129

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions should be taken into account. Strategic policy- making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in

130

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. Climate 148 The planning system Include strategic Change should support the options that enable transition to a low carbon active travel and future in a changing public transport climate, taking full account opportunities. (148) of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing

131

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Climate 150 New development should Strategic options to Change be planned for in ways avoid areas of flood that: risk. (150) a) avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure; and b) can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and

132

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards. 151 To help increase the use Include strategic and supply of renewable options that maximise and low carbon energy and the potential for heat, plans should: decentralised energy a) provide a positive systems (ie significant strategy for energy from scales of development these sources, that at higher densities) maximises the potential for (151) suitable development, while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts); b) consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon

133

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development; and c) identify opportunities for development to draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co- locating potential heat customers and suppliers. Planning and 157 All plans should apply a Location choices flood risk sequential, risk-based within each strategic approach to the location of option to avoid areas development – taking into of flood risk. (157) account the current and future impacts of climate change – so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property. 15. 170 Planning policies and Include strategic Location choices Conserving decisions should contribute options that focus within each strategic

134

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions and to and enhance the natural growth on existing option to avoid enhancing the and local environment by: urban areas, thereby protected sites of natural a) protecting and reducing impact on biodiversity environment enhancing valued countryside and importance. (170) landscapes, sites of natural capital. (170) biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland Heritage 185 Plans should set out a Include strategic positive strategy for the options that make a

135

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions conservation and positive contribution to enjoyment of the historic local character and environment, including distinctiveness (ie. heritage assets most at risk don’t increase the through neglect, decay or scale of existing other threats. This strategy settlements such that should take into account: they change their role in the existing a) the desirability of settlement hierarchy). sustaining and enhancing (185) the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to

136

Theme Reference Text Implications Implications Implications for… for…Strategic for…Evidence Options options list informing options assumptions local character and distinctiveness; and

d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

137

Cross check of impact of Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation Big Themes and Greater Cambridge Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Objectives on strategic spatial options Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation ‘Big Themes’ and within these Key Issues’, and Greater Cambridge Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Objectives were identified and matched together. Following this, consideration was given to whether a similar principle impacting on compilation of the strategic options had been established from the NPPF review above. Finally, consideration was given to whether the Big Themes or Sustainability Appraisal objectives had implications for the strategic spatial options beyond those identified in relation to the NPPF.

138

‘Big Theme’ (from ‘Key Issue’ (from Local Greater Cambridge Impact on strategic Implication for Local Plan First Plan First Local Plan options from NPPF strategic options, Conversation) Conversation) Sustainability (NPPF paragraph beyond that Appraisal objective reference) identified from (ordered by ‘Key national policy Issue’) Climate change Mitigation SA 12: To minimise Include strategic None (Reducing our impact on Greater Cambridge’s options that enable the climate as far as contribution to climate active travel and public possible) change transport opportunities. (148) Climate change Adaptation – Water SA 10: To achieve Take into account None (Ensuring that our sustainable water absolute environmental communities can evolve resource management constraints as set out in as our climate changes - and enhance the quality NPPF footnote 6, such to more extreme of Greater Cambridge’s as habitat sites and weather, a hotter climate, waters flood risk, and consider and a changing ecology) SA 11: To adapt to impact on significant climate change, including policy constraints such minimising flood risk. as Green Belt (11) Biodiversity and green Improving the Green SA 5: To conserve, Take into account None spaces Space Network enhance, restore and absolute environmental connect wildlife, habitats, constraints as set out in species and/or sites of NPPF footnote 6, such biodiversity or geological as habitat sites and interest. flood risk, and consider impact on significant policy constraints such as Green Belt (11)

139

140

141

‘Big Theme’ (from ‘Key Issue’ (from Local Greater Cambridge Impact on strategic Implication for Local Plan First Plan First Local Plan options from NPPF strategic options, Conversation) Conversation) Sustainability (NPPF paragraph beyond that Appraisal objective reference) identified from (ordered by ‘Key national policy Issue’) Air Quality SA 13: To limit air No spatial pollution in Greater implication relevant Cambridge and ensure to compiling lasting improvements in strategic spatial air quality. options. Great Places Protecting the Best of SA 6: To conserve and N/A No spatial What Already Exists enhance the character implication relevant and distinctiveness of to compiling Greater Cambridge’s strategic spatial landscapes and options. townscapes, maintaining and strengthening local distinctiveness and sense of place. SA 7: To conserve and/or enhance the qualities, fabric, setting and accessibility of Greater Cambridge’s historic environment. Great Places Creating Beautiful New N/A N/A No spatial Buildings and Places implication relevant to compiling strategic spatial options.

142

‘Big Theme’ (from ‘Key Issue’ (from Local Greater Cambridge Impact on strategic Implication for Local Plan First Plan First Local Plan options from NPPF strategic options, Conversation) Conversation) Sustainability (NPPF paragraph beyond that Appraisal objective reference) identified from (ordered by ‘Key national policy Issue’) Jobs Space for Businesses to SA 14: To facilitate a Growth options None Grow sustainable and growing evidence informed by economy Employment Land Review which considers potential for future growth in Greater Cambridge (80) Jobs Protecting Existing No spatial Employment Land implication relevant to compiling strategic spatial options. Jobs Creating a Range of SA 15: To deliver, Growth options Options include Jobs maintain and enhance evidence informed by different sources of access to diverse Employment Land supply which would employment Review which support a range of opportunities, to meet considers role of key employment types both current and future sectors and clusters in needs in Greater driving potential future Cambridge. growth in Greater Cambridge (82)

143

144

‘Big Theme’ (from ‘Key Issue’ (from Local Greater Cambridge Impact on strategic Implication for Local Plan First Plan First Local Plan options from NPPF strategic options, Conversation) Conversation) Sustainability (NPPF paragraph beyond that Appraisal objective reference) identified from (ordered by ‘Key national policy Issue’) Homes The Need for New SA 1: To ensure that Growth options None Homes everyone has the evidence (including opportunity to live in a housing) informed by decent, well-designed, Employment Land sustainably constructed Review which and affordable home considers role of key sectors and clusters in driving potential future growth in Greater Cambridge (82) Include strategic options that integrate uses including housing and employment (92) Homes Affordable Homes SA 1: To ensure that None No spatial everyone has the implication relevant opportunity to live in a to compiling decent, well-designed, strategic spatial sustainably constructed options. and affordable home Homes Diverse Housing for SA 1: To ensure that None No spatial Diverse Communities everyone has the implication relevant opportunity to live in a to compiling decent, well-designed, strategic spatial sustainably constructed options. and affordable home

145

146

147

148

149

Appendix 2: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options

150

Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Identifying the full range of reasonable spatial options

Greater Cambridge Shared Planning June 2020

151

Contents

Purpose ...... 152

Method ...... 152

Summary of findings...... 157

Annex A. Assessment of First Conversation options ...... 162

Annex B. Sifting assessment of long list of additional ideas ...... 178

Annex C. Full testing of short-listed additional ideas ...... 203

Annex D. Cross-check: review of the uniqueness of the reasonable additional options ...... 270

Annex E. Further consideration of reasonable additional options ...... 272

Annex F. List of reasonable options for testing ...... 277

Annex G. List of sources considered ...... 280279

152

Purpose This document seeks to identify the spatial development options to be considered in the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. In doing so it seeks to address the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, such that ‘only reasonable, realistic and relevant alternatives [are] put forward’9.

To achieve this, the document seeks to: • assess whether the spatial choices set out in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Conversation consultation are indeed reasonable; and • identify whether there are any additional reasonable spatial options that should be added to the First Conversation choices as assessed above.

This review forms an appendix to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: strategic spatial options for testing - methodology note. That note sets out how the identified list of reasonable spatial options will then be translated into strategic (non-site specific) options for testing.

Method

Central questions to answer For assessing First Conversation identified options, and for considering potential additional options, the central questions to answer are whether each idea is: • Realistic, relevant and reasonable, in a Greater Cambridge context; and • Substantively different to other identified spatial options.

The approaches taken to reviewing First Conversation options and potential additional options are set out below.

Assessing spatial choices set out in Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Conversation consultation Prior to the First Conversation consultation, consideration was given to whether the spatial choices it identified were reasonable and distinct from each other. In particular, given that these options were developed specifically for a Greater Cambridge context, it can be assumed that each option is both realistic and relevant.

At this next stage of seeking to identify the full range of reasonable options for strategic (non-site specific) testing, it is considered appropriate to assess whether

9 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. Practical guidance on applying European Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Appendix 6 153

the likely spatial distribution of growth implied by each option is indeed reasonable, and whether the distributions generated by the options are sufficiently different from each other to enable testing at a strategic level for transport and other impacts.

The spatial options identified within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation consultation were: • Densification of existing urban areas • Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt • Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt • Dispersal - new settlements • Dispersal - villages • Public transport corridors

Testing of First Conversation options To answer the central questions set out at 2.1, the following steps have been completed for each First Conversation option: A. Identify aim/desired effects of that option B. Identify the likely spatial distribution of growth generated by the option C. Assessment of whether the option is reasonable10 in a Greater Cambridge context, based on a high-level judgement drawing on officer knowledge, including consideration of: • Broad compatibility with national planning policy • absolute constraints (including land capacity, flood risk and habitats of national or international importance) • viability and deliverability

Cross-check: review of the uniqueness of the reasonable additional options Cross-check to assess if the likely spatial distribution of growth generated by First Conversation options are substantively different to each other.

Identifying additional reasonable spatial options A review has been completed of a range of approaches to identifying spatial options, including a review of national policy, plan-making practice within the UK, and of ideas put forward from other sources.

Sources considered, and definitions The paragraphs below list the sources considered to help identify additional spatial options, and the nature of the ideas derived from them.

10 Note again as at 2.2 that all First Conversation options are assumed to be relevant and realistic, given that they were developed specifically for a Greater Cambridge context. 154

Revisit of sources that informed First Conversation options – spatial options Sources that informed the First Conversation options included the strategy in the adopted Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans and the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review.

These sources set out Cambridgeshire-specific spatial options of the same nature as the First Conversation options (i.e. a distribution of growth requirements at different broad locations within a settlement hierarchy), and therefore can be compared consistently with First Conversation options and either confirmed or rejected as being additional and reasonable. Example options considered include: • A1: Densification • A2: Fringe Development National Planning Policy Framework - spatial principles As a national policy document, the NPPF does not set out specific spatial options that can be directly translated into locally specific options. Rather, it “provides a framework [perhaps best described as principles] within which locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced”11. Given this, Appendix 2 to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: strategic spatial options for testing - methodology note identifies a number of spatial principles set out in the NPPF.

This review considers whether the principles are incorporated into one or more First Conversation option. Example NPPF spatial principles considered include: • B4: Integrate uses including housing and employment • B5: Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport infrastructure Plan-making practice in the UK – spatial options This included reviewing spatial options explored in Local Plan consultations from a range of plans in different contexts. These are of the same nature as the First Conversation options, and therefore can be compared consistently with First Conversation options and either confirmed or rejected as being additional and reasonable.

Example strategy options considered include: • C3: Supporting an existing high-tech cluster • C8: Expanded Growth Area Ideas proposed from other sources, including spatial concepts Ideas were drawn from a range of sources including: • Wolfson Prize for Economics 2014 • Cambridge Futures, 2000 • The Cambridge to Oxford Connection: Ideas Competition • 5th Studio for NIC, 2017. Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford Future Planning Options Project

11 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019. National Planning Policy Framework, para. 1. 155

• Ideas from staff within Greater Cambridge Shared Planning • Responses to First Conversation options

Some of the ideas arising from these other sources can be considered as spatial options or principles as per the descriptions above. However, some could best be described as spatial concepts, in that they relate to the organisation of development at a more granular level in comparison to the broad distribution of development envisaged for spatial options. Such spatial concepts could potentially be applied within a number of (broad distribution) spatial options.

Example spatial concepts considered include: • D02: New living campus clusters • D06: Edge Intensification

For the purpose of this review, spatial concepts have been considered in the same way as the spatial options and principles, in order to consider whether they in fact have implications for the broad distribution of growth. However, further exploration of spatial concepts may be undertaken separately, alongside testing of strategic options, to inform the spatial organisation of development that could be delivered under each of the broad options. Later in the plan-making process, the preferred strategy may include a combination of spatial options – i.e. broad distribution of growth across the Greater Cambridge area - and spatial concepts - guiding the spatial organisation of development in the preferred locations.

Having identified a range of different approaches, the review completed the tasks set out below:

Sifting of long list

To focus the review on ideas that warranted substantive consideration, sifting was completed of the long list of 95 ideas. Ideas were sifted out where they: • clearly duplicate one or more spatial options identified within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Conversation consultation • suggest an option without a clear spatial focus (eg. C06: Dispersal plus urban growth; E07: Blended Spatial Strategy). Whilst it is likely that the preferred spatial scenario taken forward in the Local Plan will include more than one type of location within Greater Cambridge, to consider impacts at a strategic level there is a need for clear differentiation between options.

Commentary is provided to justify the judgement made. Where the answer was unclear the option is put forward for full consideration.

156

Full testing of shortlisted options

For each spatial idea identified for full testing through this review, the following steps have been completed: A. Identify aim/desired effects of that idea B. Assessment of whether the option is likely to be relevant in a Greater Cambridge context, to help inform an assessment of whether the option is reasonable C. Dependent on task B, identify the potential spatial distribution of growth generated by it in a Greater Cambridge context D. Drawing on task C, assessment of whether the likely distribution of growth generated by an option is substantively different to the existing spatial options identified in the First Conversation document, as translated into strategic spatial options E. If the option passes steps B and D, an assessment of whether the option is reasonable in a Greater Cambridge context, based on a high-level judgement drawing on officer knowledge, including consideration of: • Broad compatibility with national policy • absolute constraints (including land capacity, flood risk and habitats of national or international importance) • viability and deliverability

Time Horizon

Build out of a number of the larger scale ideas assessed within this review would continue across more than one plan period, as larger scale development usually has a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. On the other hand, the Greater Cambridge Local Plan will need to meet a set homes requirement by the end of its plan period.

To support an approach to testing ideas that acknowledges this tension: • larger-scale longer-term ideas have been identified within the description of each idea, • For steps C and D set out above consideration has been given separately to a limited plan period, and to the overall effect of the idea once built out. • For step E, consideration is given to the overall effect of the idea, with reference made within the deliverability assessment to likely build out in relation to the plan period.

Conclusions about which options are reasonable in relation to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan are set out in Summary of findings below.

157

Cross-check: review of the uniqueness of the reasonable additional options

Cross-check to assess if the additional options that are considered reasonable are substantively different to each other.

Further consideration of reasonable additional options

This section considers further the reasonable additional options compared through the cross-checking step, in order to confirm which should be taken forward for testing as strategic spatial options.

Summary of findings Testing of First Conversation options Assessment of the First Conversation options is set out at Annex A. This assessment confirmed that all six First Conversation options should be taken forward for strategic options testing.

Identifying any additional reasonable spatial options Sifting of long list

The sifting of the long list is set out in full at Annex B. Based on this sifting, out of a long list of 97 options, the 29 options listed below were put forward for full consideration: Revisit of sources that informed First Conversation options • A0 Current strategy • A03 Dispersal (sub-regional) Spatial principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework • B04 Integrate uses including housing and employment • B05 Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport infrastructure • B12 Proportionate growth approach: Focus growth in locations that make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness Plan-making practice in the UK • C03 Supporting an existing high-tech corridor. • C08 Expanded growth area • C13 All development located in the high-tech growth area (all in Science Vale) • C18 Locating development in particular settlements where it could help fund projects • C22 Spokes and hubs • C25 ‘String’ settlement/ settlement cluster • C26 ‘Wheel’ settlement cluster

158

Ideas proposed from other sources • D01 Garden City, growing an existing city • D02 New living campus clusters • D03 Town cluster; village cluster; village • D06 Edge Intensification • D11 String City • D13 Minimum growth • D18 Virtual Highway • D20 Copenhagen Green Finger Plan • D21 Net zero growth • D22 Spatial urbanism approach

Responses to First Conversation options • E02 Housing in close proximity to employment/innovation centres • E03 Tied cottages /key worker housing • E05 The 'Gruene Finger' • E06 Focus development to the east side of the city • E08 The A428 Corridor • E16 Brownfield Sites First • E21 ‘Nature recovery network'

Full testing of shortlisted options

Full testing of the shortlisted options is set out at Annex C. This assessment identified the following options as being reasonable and substantively different to the First Conversation options.

• Principle B04: Integrate uses including housing and employment • Option C03: Supporting an existing high-tech corridor • Option C13: All development located in the high-tech growth area (All in Science Vale) • Principle E03: Housing in close proximity to employment/innovation centres • Principle B05: Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport infrastructure • Option C08: Expanded growth area • Option E08: A428 Corridor • Principle D24: Nature First • Principle E21: Nature Recovery Network Cross-check and further exploration of the reasonable additional options

The cross-check review and further exploration of the options identified as being reasonable and substantively different to the First Conversation options is set out at

159

Annexes D and E. This cross-check identified the following options as being unique. These options are therefore are recommended to be added as a new option for testing at a strategic level: • Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs • Expanding a growth area around transport nodes

List of options for testing The list of options for testing is set out at Annex E, including descriptions. The options are as follows: • Densification of existing urban areas • Edge of Cambridge (incorporating outside and within the Green Belt) • Dispersal - new settlements • Dispersal – villages • Public transport corridors • Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs • Expanding a growth area around transport nodes

Emerging themes and areas for further work In considering the long and short lists of potential additional options, a number of themes and ideas have arisen, including: o Options that are not additional but can inform the nature of existing options o Area-specific options o Clustered growth concepts o Larger scale, longer term ideas Assessed options that can inform the nature of existing options A number of assessed options were considered not to be additional to existing options, but prompted consideration of the nature of the existing options for testing, including: Densification Relevant options considered included: • Option A02: Densification • Principle B08: Optimise the density of development • Option C17: Raising Densities • Concept D04: Town Centre Intensification • Concept D05: Suburban Intensification

Ideas arising include: o Consider a range of densification options including a maximum density option o Consider a range of densification locations, including town centre and suburban opportunities Edge of Cambridge: Relevant options considered included:

160

o Concept D01: Garden City, growing an existing city

Ideas arising include: o The Garden City idea considered extends an existing city along public transport corridors, such that the idea almost merges with Option D20: Copenhagen Green Finger Plan. See discussion below. Transport corridors Relevant options considered included: o Concept D20: Copenhagen Finger plan o Concept C25: ‘String’ settlement/ settlement cluster o Concept D22: Spatial Urbanism approach o Concept D03: Town cluster; village cluster; village (VeloCity)

Ideas arising include: o The Copenhagen Green finger plan extended the city along public transport corridors providing continuous broad corridors of development separated by green wedges. It is proposed to consider this scenario within the Public Transport Corridors option. o Concepts D03: Town cluster; village cluster; village and D22: Spatial Urbanism approach both define sustainable locations to an extent in relation to assumptions about reasonable cycling distances to public transport nodes/local centres. Further consideration may be given to these concepts in parallel to the strategic options testing process. Area specific options Relevant options considered included: • Principle B04: Integrate uses including housing and employment • Option C03: Supporting an existing high-tech corridor • Option C13: All development located in the high-tech growth area (All in Science Vale) • Principle E03: Housing in close proximity to employment/innovation centres • Option C08: Expanded growth area • Option E08: A428 Corridor

The above options and principles were considered to be additional to the typology focused First Conversation options. Amalgams of them were put forward for testing as two strategic spatial options. Clustered growth concepts Relevant concepts considered included: • Concept D02: New living campus clusters • Concept D03: Town cluster; village cluster; village (VeloCity) • Concept D11: String City

161

As noted at 2.2.1 Sources considered, and definitions, most of the ideas proposed from other sources are spatial concepts rather than options in themselves. In testing the impact of these on the broad distributions of growth many are in effect hybrids of existing options. As noted above, further consideration may be given to these concepts in parallel to the strategic options testing process. Larger scale, longer term ideas As introduced at 2.3.4 Time Horizon, a number of ideas considered were of a larger scale and therefore longer term than others. Relevant concepts considered included: • FC4: Dispersal – new settlements • D01: Garden City, growing an existing city • D02: New living campus clusters • D11: String City

Given that to be found sound at Examination, Local Plans must be deliverable over the plan period, this factor is of significance in assessing whether larger scale, longer term ideas provide reasonable options.

As such, it is difficult to conceive how very large-scale ideas such as D01 and D11, which both conceive of city-scale growth, could be initiated within the relatively limited horizon of a ~20 year plan period.

In this regard, intentionally scalable approaches such as D02: New living campus clusters, which conceives of small scale new settlements located close to one another that eventually form clusters, would appear to have particular benefits in balancing the tension between short term deliverability and long-term sustainability. As noted above, further consideration may be given to this concept in parallel to the strategic options testing process.

162

Annex A. Assessment of First Conversation options Densification of existing urban areas Source • Greater Cambridge First Conversation website: Densification of existing urban areas Description (from source) This approach would focus new homes and jobs within Cambridge, because it is the main urban area and centre for services and facilities. This would be done by encouraging intensive use of brownfield land, building taller buildings, building on existing residential back gardens or in-between existing buildings, or redeveloping underused sites at higher densities. It could also look to increase the density in planned new settlements.

A. Purpose/effects (from source)

Advantages:

• Reduces the need to use greenfield land to accommodate growth. • Living in central, well-connected and vibrant areas is important for many people. • Reduces the need to travel by car and so makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change. • Sites growth near to existing centres, which can continue to support their vitality and viability.

Challenges:

• Needs to respond to the character of Cambridge, and protect its historic environment and green spaces, therefore not suitable in all areas. • Land assembly can be challenging with multiple landowners often involved.

163

B. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context

Description Growth focused in urban areas of Cambridge (including at North East Cambridge), Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village.

C. Reasonable?

Reasonable: national policy? Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 117 and others on making effective use of land. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Partly. o Yes – it is assumed that there is some capacity for densification in Cambridge urban area and planned new settlements. o No – it is assumed that under medium or high growth scenarios there may not be sufficient capacity in densification locations to meet all development requirements. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Partly. o Given that the intention of this option is to locate development within existing urban areas it is assumed that this would not be impacted significantly by environmental constraints such as flooding and significant habitats. o Impacts on heritage assets within Cambridge in particular would need to be considered when assessing capacity for densification.

164

Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown, assume yes o Whilst development of brownfield land usually involves higher site preparation costs to address issues such as land contamination, development in Cambridge in particular, as a location with high land values, is assumed likely to be viable. • Deliverability: Unknown, assume challenging o As noted above at Step A, land assembly can be challenging with multiple landowners often involved.

Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt Source • Greater Cambridge First Conversation website: Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt Description (from source)

This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, using land not in the green belt. The only large site on the edge of Cambridge not in the Green Belt is Cambridge Airport (N.B. North East Cambridge is considered within FC1: Densification of existing urban areas).

A. Purpose/effects (from source)

Advantages:

• Benefits from the services and infrastructure at the existing centre, maximising the potential for sustainable transport. • Large scale urban extensions present the opportunity for new on-site infrastructure, such as schools, local centres and green spaces that can bring benefits to the existing and new community. • Cambridge Airport has previously been identified as suitable location for a new urban quarter to Cambridge and was removed from the Green Belt in earlier plans. It is identified as safeguarded land for longer term development in the 2018 Local Plans if it becomes available. • Makes use of brownfield land.

Challenges:

• Confirmation whether safeguarded land at Cambridge Airport can be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

165

B. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context

Description See description above.

C. Reasonable?

Reasonable: national policy? Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 136 regarding only making changes to Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances. and para. 117 on making effective use of land. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Partly. o Yes – there is capacity at Cambridge Airport safeguarded for development in the adopted Local Plans; there is also capacity at North East Cambridge. o No – it is assumed that under medium or high growth scenarios there may not be sufficient capacity at these locations to meet all development requirements. • Environmental constraints: Yes. o In order for Cambridge Airport to be identified as safeguarded land for development in Local Plans suggests that this location has passed sufficient testing to suggest that significant scales of development can take place without generating significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts of proposed development at this location will

166

again be subject to testing through the ongoing plan-making processes. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Yes o Development in Cambridge in particular, as a location with high land values, is likely to be viable. o Land at Cambridge Airport and is being actively promoted by the landowner, which implies that development is both viable and deliverable. • Deliverability: Partly o Land at Cambridge Airport and is being actively promoted by the landowner, which implies that development is both viable and deliverable. o As noted at Step A, confirmation whether safeguarded land at Cambridge Airport can be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt Source • Greater Cambridge First Conversation website: Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt

Description (from source) This approach would create new homes and jobs in extensions on the edge of Cambridge, involving release of land from the Green Belt.

A. Purpose/effects (from source)

Advantages:

Challenges:

• Potential major impact on the landscape and loss of agricultural land. • Requires the use of greenfield land on the edge of urban areas, which around Cambridge would require the release of Green Belt land. National planning policy is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where

167

exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. This includes a requirement that all other reasonable options, including working with neighbouring districts, have been fully explored. It also says that when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account.

B. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context

Description Focus growth on edge of Cambridge in Green Belt locations.

C. Reasonable?

National policy Partly • No – a growth option focused on Green Belt land would not be compatible with NPPF para. 136 on only making changes to Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances. • Yes – it may be that testing identifies this option as the most environmentally sustainable, which might support exceptional circumstances for removing land from the Green Belt.

168

On balance, it is considered important to test the sustainability benefits of options including land in the Green Belt so as to test all reasonable options, including not prejudging whether there are exceptional circumstances for amending Green Belt boundaries. The Councils will follow all requirements set out in the NPPF paras 137/8 when considering development options in relation to Green Belt. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Partly o Yes - There is undeveloped land on the edge of Cambridge within the Green Belt. o No – it is assumed that under medium or high growth scenarios there may not be sufficient capacity at these locations to meet all development requirements. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Yes o Development on the edge of Cambridge, as a location with high land values, is likely to be viable. • Deliverability: Yes o Development on green field sites relatively close to existing infrastructure should support deliverability.

Dispersal - new settlements Source • Greater Cambridge First Conversation website: Dispersal - new settlements Description (from source) New settlements would establish a whole new town or village, providing homes, jobs and supporting infrastructure in a new location, and would need to be supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge.

Larger-scale/longer term idea

A. Purpose/effects (from source)

Advantages:

• Provides an opportunity for significant new infrastructure to be delivered. • Provides an opportunity for substantial growth in a new location connected to the transport network. • May avoid removing land from the Green Belt

Challenges:

169

• Potential major impact on the landscape and loss of agricultural land. • Can take longer to become reality, due to starting from scratch. • Where it relies on proposed new transport infrastructure, even where it is included in the plans of the transport authorities, the level of certainty over delivery and timing of that infrastructure is crucial.

B. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context

Description • Plan period: First phases of new settlements supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge. • Built out: towns and villages connected to Cambridge supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge.

C. Reasonable?

National policy Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 72 on the potential benefits of planning for larger scale growth including new settlements. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes o There is undeveloped land within Greater Cambridge which in theory has capacity for additional new settlements. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume yes.

170

o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume partly o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o Cost and capacity of transport options may have a significant impact on viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume challenging o Deliverability is very much dependent on transport costs/ improvements, especially if these need to be implemented in advance of new development. o New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation of how much of a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

Dispersal - villages Source • Greater Cambridge First Conversation website: Dispersal - villages Description (from source) This approach would spread new homes and jobs out to the villages.

A. Purpose/effects (from source)

Advantages:

• Can help to sustain existing facilities and infrastructure in the village. • Can help provide for a diversity of population in the village.

Challenges:

• Can result in increased commuting by car, and travel to access to services and facilities, particularly if the village is away from main transport corridors. • Small sites are unlikely to significantly contribute to improvements to infrastructure so services capacity within or accessible to a particular village is important. • Potential impact on village character needs to be considered. • Some of the larger better served villages are surrounded by the Green Belt.

171

B. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context

Description New homes and jobs dispersed across villages in South Cambridgeshire.

C. Reasonable?

National policy Partly: • Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 78 in promoting sustainable development in rural areas. • No – a strategy dispersing all growth might not be compatible with NPPF environmental requirements. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes o There is undeveloped land around villages in Greater Cambridge which in theory provides capacity for further development. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Yes

172

o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume partly o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, demonstrating their ongoing deliverability in general. Clearly specific sites will have different constraints which may affect deliverability. o Developer contributions on individual smaller sites do not generate substantive contributions to support major transport and other infrastructure provision. As such, an option that focused growth towards very many smaller sites might result in cumulative impacts on the transport network, for which it might be hard to collect sufficient funds to mitigate. Over time this could lead to an infrastructure deficit that might make such a strategy undeliverable in the long term.

Dispersal - Public transport corridors Source • Greater Cambridge First Conversation website: Public transport corridors Description (from source) This approach would focus homes and jobs along key public transport corridors and around transport hubs, extending out from Cambridge. This could be by expanding or intensifying existing settlements, or with more new settlements.

A. Purpose/effects (from source)

Advantages:

• Concentrates development on transport corridors where there are opportunities for high quality public transport. • Supports expansion of economic benefits outwards from Cambridge.

Challenges:

• Requires the use of land along transport corridors, which may include locations within the Green Belt. This approach has implications for fundamentally changing the nature of the Cambridge Green Belt. • Weight to be given to proposed new strategic transport infrastructure, even where it is included in the plans of the transport authorities, will depend on the level of certainty over delivery and timing of that infrastructure.

173

B. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context

Description Expansion or intensification of existing settlements, or new settlements, along key existing or proposed public transport corridors linking to Cambridge. Corridors could include those on the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, current Greater Cambridge Partnership corridors (and proposed Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Corridors), or existing or proposed rail corridors.

C. Reasonable?

National policy Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 102 on realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes o There is undeveloped land along existing or proposed transport corridors within Greater Cambridge which in theory has capacity for additional new settlements. There is also undeveloped land around villages along existing or proposed transport corridors within Greater Cambridge which in theory has capacity for development. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume yes.

174

o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. o Locating growth close to public transport nodes should reduce additional transport infrastructure investment required to support development, and thereby increase viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Locating growth close to public transport nodes should reduce additional transport infrastructure investment required to support development, and thereby increase deliverability. o Some proposed transport infrastructure projects in the Greater Cambridge area are yet to have funding or be confirmed. As such, confirmation whether such projects could be completed in time to support associated development within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate growth on these routes in the new Local Plan. o New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation whether a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

Cross-check: review of the uniqueness of the First Conversation options Option Likely distribution of growth Unique? FC1: Densification of Growth focused in urban areas of Yes existing urban areas Cambridge, Cambourne, Northstowe, Waterbeach and Bourn FC2: Edge of Growth focused at Cambridge Partly: Cambridge- outside Airport Yes – in contrast the Green Belt with FC3, this option would use brownfield land, with likely significantly lower

175

impacts on e,g. landscape. No – likely that transport and infrastructure effects of locating growth at edge of Cambridge outside Green Belt would be similar to FC3. FC3: Edge of Growth focused on edge of Partly: Cambridge - Green Cambridge at various locations Yes – in contrast Belt within Green Belt with FC2, this option would use greenfield land, with likely significantly higher impacts on e.g. landscape. No – likely that effects of locating growth at edge of Cambridge outside Green Belt would be similar to edge of Cambridge: Green belt locations. FC4: Dispersal - new Growth at new towns and villages Partly: settlements No - Potential for overlap with Public Transport Corridors, given that new towns and villages would need to be connected to Cambridge and/or other higher order settlements by public transport to make them sustainable. Yes – Public Transport Corridors envisages growth at

176

villages located on public transport nodes in addition to new settlements. FC5: Dispersal – Growth spread between the Yes villages villages FC6: Public transport Expansion or intensification of Partly – see above corridors existing settlements, or new at FC4 settlements, along key existing or proposed public transport corridors linking to Cambridge. Corridors could include those on the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, current Greater Cambridge Partnership corridors (and proposed Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Corridors), or existing or proposed rail corridors.

Conclusion As set out above. the First Conversation options have been assessed to consider whether they are both reasonable and substantively different to each other, in order to be taken forward for strategic options testing. The conclusions are as follows: Option Reasonable? Unique? Take forward for strategic testing? FC1: Densification Yes Yes Yes of existing urban areas

FC2: Edge of Yes Yes Yes Cambridge- outside the Green Belt FC3: Edge of Partly Yes Yes Cambridge - Green Belt FC4: Dispersal - Yes Partly Yes new settlements FC5: Dispersal – Yes Yes Yes villages

177

FC6: Public Yes Partly Yes transport corridors

Drawing on the above, all First Conversation options are carried forward to be tested as strategic spatial options.

178

Annex B. Sifting assessment of long list of additional ideas

179

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? A0 Current strategy Cambridge Local (Cambridge Local Plan 2.27) The preferred Yes Not explicitly included in First Conversation Plan 2018 / South sequential approach for new development can be consultation. Cambridgeshire described as: Local Plan 2018 (first) being within the existing urban area of Cambridge; (second) being within the defined fringe sites on the edge of Cambridge; (third) within the six small-scale Green Belt sites proposed to be released from the inner Green Belt boundary, four of which are within the city; (fourth) within existing and newly identified new settlement locations at Cambourne, Northstowe, Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach; and lastly in identified villages. A01 Base Case Cambridgeshire & This is a ‘business as usual’ approach. We No Repeat of current strategy Peterborough expect houses to be built in the areas set aside in Independent local plans. Transport links are upgraded in a Economic Review - way that seems reasonable based on current Final Report trends and timelines.

A02 Densification Cambridgeshire & This assumes that more houses get built, and No Same as Densification. Peterborough jobs get created, in the urban areas of Independent Cambridge and Peterborough, without Economic Review - significantly expanding boundaries. This would Final Report mean using remaining brownfield space on the edges to create high-density accommodation. It requires taller buildings in these areas to increase the number of people who can live and work within an area of land. A03 Dispersal (sub-regional) Cambridgeshire & A dispersal strategy is where new houses and Yes The First Conversation consultation did not Peterborough jobs are created outside of the primary urban include any options considering growth Independent areas of Cambridge and extending beyond Greater Cambridge Economic Review - Peterborough, mainly in the market towns. It boundaries. Final Report could also involve the creation of new towns and villages where previously there was only farmland/countryside.

180

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? A04 Fringe Growth Cambridgeshire & In the fringe growth scenario, large expansions No Same as Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green Peterborough happen on the outside of Cambridge and Belt and Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt Independent Peterborough, while the level of housing density Economic Review - within cities is left unchanged. A fringe growth Final Report approach significantly expands the urban footprint of the cities.

A05 Transport Corridors Cambridgeshire & A transport corridors approach focuses on No Same as Public Transport Corridors Peterborough developing jobs Independent and housing along transport corridors which Economic Review - radiate out of the main cities. Transport corridors Final Report can include fast bus, tram, or train links, providing rapid transit into cities.

B01 incorporate larger scale development NPPF One or more strategic options No All options except Dispersal – villages, imply should…incorporate larger scale development, concentrations of significant growth. supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities.

B02 incorporate rural growth NPPF One or more strategic options No Dispersal - new settlements and Public should…incorporate growth in rural areas where transport corridors options imply a focus of it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural growth in rural areas. communities.

B03 Support provision of new, or enable access to NPPF One or more strategic options should…support No All options except Dispersal – villages, imply existing, community infrastructure the provision of new, or enable access to concentrations of significant growth which will existing, community infrastructure. support the creation of new infrastructure. Densification option locates growth close to existing infrastructure.

181

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? B04 Integrate uses including housing and employment NPPF One or more strategic options should… ensure Yes - needs Partly: an integrated approach to considering the further • Yes - Densification of existing urban areas, location of housing, economic uses and consideration Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green Belt, community facilities and services. Edge of Cambridge - Green Belt concentrate housing and employment growth in settlements where employment is already concentrated; • Yes - Dispersal - new settlements would create new jobs and homes in a single location. • No - At a wider scale, an additional option could seek to focus more housing growth towards broad areas of employment growth. B05 Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport NPPF One or more strategic options should…take Yes - needs Partly: infrastructure opportunities from existing or proposed transport further • No - Public transport corridors explicitly infrastructure…for example in relation to the consideration relies on existing and proposed transport scale, location or density of development. infrastructure. • No - Dispersal - new settlements acknowledges need to connect new settlements to main centres via transport infrastructure. • Yes - additional options could focus growth in areas relating to the most significant transport projects (ie East West Rail). B06 Enable active travel and public transport NPPF One or more strategic options should… support No • All options except Dispersal – villages, imply opportunities walking, cycling and public transport use. concentrations of significant growth which will support the creation of new infrastructure, enabling walkable and cyclable places. • Public transport corridors explicitly relies on existing and proposed transport infrastructure. • Dispersal - new settlements acknowledges need to connect new settlements to main centres via transport infrastructure. B07 Be focused on previously-developed land NPPF One or more strategic options should… make as No Densification of existing urban areas focuses much use as possible of previously-developed or growth on previously developed land. ‘brownfield’ land.

182

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? B08 Optimise the density of development, promoting a One or more strategic options should…optimise No No – Densification of existing urban areas significant uplift in minimum density standards in the density of development, promoting a explicitly considers densification in Cambridge town and city centres and other locations well significant uplift in minimum density standards in and the new settlements. served by public transport town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport.

B09 take account of existing Cambridge Green Belt NPPF One or more strategic options should…take No No: account of Cambridge Green Belt, including its • All of the options together provide choices inner and outer boundaries. about locating or not locating growth within existing Cambridge Green Belt. • In particular, Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt and Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt explicitly test the most critical of these choices. B10 Maximise the potential for decentralised energy NPPF One or more strategic options should…maximise No Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt, Edge systems the potential for decentralised energy systems of Cambridge: Green Belt, and Dispersal: (i.e. include significant scales of development at New Settlements imply concentrations of higher densities that could generate sufficient significant growth which could support the demand for an effective decentralised energy potential for decentralised energy systems. system).

B11 focus growth on existing urban areas, thereby NPPF One or more strategic options should…focus No No: reducing impact on countryside and natural growth on existing urban areas, thereby reducing • Densification of existing urban areas capital. impact on the countryside, agricultural land, and focuses growth on previously developed land. natural capital more broadly. • All options except Dispersal: villages seek to concentrate growth and could include higher densities, thereby limiting the widespread impact of development on the countryside and agricultural land.

183

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? B12 Proportionate growth approach: Focus growth in NPPF Include strategic options that...make a positive Yes - needs Partly: locations that make a positive contribution to local contribution to local character and distinctiveness further • No - Densification of existing urban areas, character and distinctiveness (ie. maintain the current relative roles of consideration and Edge of Cambridge - outside the Green settlements within the settlement hierarchy, Belt in principle seek to retain the current distributing growth proportionate to locations settlement hierarchy and also retain policy relative to current size). designations that support the character of Note that this is a very specific way of reading Cambridge and its hinterland. the implication of NPPF para. 185. To extract • Yes – consideration has not been given principle for the purposes of identifying potential previously to what a proportionate growth impacts on strategy options. Many other readings pattern would look like. of the implications of this are possible. In reality, any spatial option could affect local character and distinctiveness, particularly under higher growth scenarios. C01 Option 1: Concentration Close to Norwich Greater Norwich Not described further in Growth Options No Close to Edge of Cambridge / no clear option Joint Local Plan consultation for strategic testing.

C02 Option 2: Transport Corridors Greater Norwich Not described further in Growth Options No Same as Public Transport Corridors Joint Local Plan consultation

C03 Supporting an existing high-tech corridor. Greater Norwich Option 3 would concentrate the great majority of Yes Joint Local Plan the additional 3,300 dwellings in theA11 corridor, with significant growth in the south west fringe, Wymondham and a new settlement in or near the corridor.

184

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C04 Option 4: Dispersal Greater Norwich Not described in Growth Options consultation No Same as Dispersal Joint Local Plan

C05 Option 5: Dispersal plus New Settlement Greater Norwich Not described in Growth Options consultation No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First Joint Local Plan Conversation options, which are all described as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely resulting pattern but to be identified following strategic options testing.

C06 Option 6: Dispersal plus Urban Growth Greater Norwich Not described in Growth Options consultation No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First Joint Local Plan Conversation options, which are all described as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely resulting pattern but to be identified following strategic options testing.

C07 Option 1 – Continue the current approach Bedford Borough Growth area remains as currently defined and No Same as Current Strategy, tested in Annex A. Local Plan 2032 continues to accommodate majority of growth. · Limited development in the remaining rural area, mostly village infilling. · Development in open countryside restricted in line with government policy.

C08 Expanded growth area Bedford Borough The current ‘growth area’ (Bedford, Kempston Yes Yes – focuses growth in a geographically Local Plan 2032 and the villages in the Marston Vale) could be specific (rather than typology-specific) expanded. Development would still be location which is not considered through First concentrated in the expanded ‘growth area’ and Conversation options. there would be little development in the remainder of the borough.

185

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C09 Option 3 – Expanded growth area plus some rural Bedford Borough Growth area as option 2. More growth allowed in No Hybrid - no clear option for strategic testing; growth Local Plan 2032 the larger villages than in smaller settlements. hybrid option most likely resulting pattern but Development in open countryside restricted in to be identified following strategic options line with government policy. testing.

C10 Option 4 – Existing growth area plus new rural Bedford Borough Growth area similar to option 1 but with less No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First growth points Local Plan 2032 growth than option 1. · Some growth also to be Conversation options, which are all described focussed on a limited number of new rural growth as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely points. · Development in the rest of the borough resulting pattern but to be identified following limited to infilling in existing villages. · strategic options testing. Development in open countryside restricted in line with government policy. C11 Option 5 – Spread development around existing Bedford Borough Abandon concentration of development in the No Same as Dispersal settlements Local Plan 2032 growth area. · Allocate development to settlements according to their size (about two thirds to the urban area and one third to rural villages). · Development in open countryside restricted in line with government policy.

C12 Science Vale focus plus ‘sustainable settlements’ South Oxfordshire Focus on Science Vale area (60%) with the No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First Plan remainder across ‘sustainable settlements’ (40%) Conversation options, which are all described (likely to be Thame, Wallingford, Henley and as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely some less constrained larger villages e.g. resulting pattern but to be identified following Benson, Berinsfield, Chalgrove, Chinnor, strategic options testing. Cholsey, Crowmarsh Gifford, Sonning Common and Watlington). C13 All development located in the high-tech growth South Oxfordshire All additional housing in Science Vale Yes area (all in Science Vale) Plan

186

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C14 All growth in a single new settlement South Oxfordshire All additional housing in a single new settlement No Locates all growth in a geographically specific Plan in the shaded area of the district which is not in (rather than typology-specific) location, but the Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural new settlements are already included as an Beauty. option in First Conversation.

C15 Dispersal South Oxfordshire Make land allocations for new homes at all No Same as Dispersal Plan towns, larger and smaller villages, and introduce a more permissive approach to infill development in the smallest villages (but still not hamlets or open countryside).

C16 Next to neighbouring major urban areas South Oxfordshire Our rural district lies immediately adjacent to the No Exact context not relevant to Greater Plan major town of Reading and the city of Oxford. Cambridge, but principle of locating growth Here there are many employment opportunities adjacent to major urban areas would result in as well as universities, regional hospitals and Edge of Cambridge options included in First bigger shopping centres. One option would be to Conversation. put our housing growth on the edge of these neighbouring urban areas. C17 Raising densities South Oxfordshire We could fit in more growth on a smaller area of No Same as Densification. Plan land by encouraging higher densities in new development. Our current policy, Core Strategy policy CSH2, sets a minimum of 25 dwellings per hectare, which is quite a low density. We set this to make sure that developments are planned sensitively to ft with their settings. However, there are many examples of higher density development which still work well. Higher density doesn’t automatically mean small ﬂats, cramped living, no gardens, not enough parking and poor design. The examples in the boxes below show

187

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C18 Locating development in particular settlements South Oxfordshire Public money to fund infrastructure is in short Yes No First Conversation option has as its where it could help fund projects Plan supply. Sometimes the only way that big scale explicit purpose the funding of desired improvements or expansions can be paid for is infrastructure, albeit resulting distribution of through development. By the community taking development could be same as for existing housing development, the council and county options. To be explored further. council can require housebuilders to contribute towards infrastructure projects. These could be, for example, a new road, a new river bridge, or a new or expanded school. The scale of growth to fund such ‘big ticket’ items is likely to be quite large, but we would like to know if there are any communities which would welcome investigation of this option. Another route for communities to look at enhanced growth to fund a ‘big ticket’ project is through preparing a neighbourhood plan. C19 Intensification of city, town and district centres Introducing the No further explanation provided No Same as Densification. Oxfordshire Plan 2050

C20 Intensification of development within existing Introducing the No further explanation provided No Same as Densification. suburbs Oxfordshire Plan 2050

C21 Intensification around the edges of larger Introducing the No further explanation provided No Same as Densification/Edge of Cambridge settlements and strategic extensions Oxfordshire Plan options 2050

188

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C22 Spokes and hubs Introducing the (Continue to focus on Oxford and key corridors in Yes Oxfordshire Plan to Oxford) 2050

C23 New settlement/s Introducing the No further explanation provided No Same as Dispersal: New Settlements Oxfordshire Plan 2050

C24 Dispersal Introducing the (This would involve spreading new development No Hybrid of Dispersal: villages and Dispersal: Oxfordshire Plan evenly across the county, including in smaller new settlements. 2050 settlements)

C25 ‘String’ settlement/ settlement cluster Introducing the (Development focused on a number of linked Yes Oxfordshire Plan settlements. It could involve new and/or 2050 existing/expanded settlements)

C26 ‘Wheel’ settlement cluster Introducing the (Focus on Oxford and the existing larger towns Yes Oxfordshire Plan and the key corridors in to Oxford and between 2050 the towns)

189

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C27 Option 1: Neighbourhood plan-led delivery of Hinckley & The No Does not provide a clear implication for any growth Bosworth Local distribution pattern for new development is spatial distribution that could be tested. Not Plan determined by Parish Councils and the Borough considered to be a realistic option. Council. Under this option, for the Local Plan period, Local Parishes will be expected to put forward an annual figure for the number of new homes, employment and other land uses that they will bring forward through their Neighbourhood Development Plans. The cumulative figure will then be offset against our Borough’s Objectively Assessed Housing Need to establish a residual figure. The Local Plan will C28 Option 2: Core Strategy approach Hinckley & Development would continue to be directed in No Repeat of current strategy Bosworth Local accordance with the strategic approach of the Plan current Core Strategy

C29 Option 3: Key Transport and Accessibility Hinckley & This approach would see development directed No Same as Public Transport Corridors Corridors Bosworth Local towards the key transport corridors in the Plan borough.

C30 Option 4: Garden Village / New Town Hinckley & A new settlement would be developed in the No Same as New Settlements Bosworth Local borough through this option. No specific location Plan or broad area was identified in the SIO to accommodate this new settlement.

190

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? C31 Option 5: Proportionate growth of key rural Hinckley & Development would be broadly distributed No Would be addressed through Dispersal: centres Bosworth Local amongst the key rural centres under this option. Villages. Plan

C32 Option 6: A mix of the above options Hinckley & Rather than rely on one strategic option alone, No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First Bosworth Local under Conversation options, which are all described Plan this approach a combination of options 1‐5 would as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely deliver development in the borough. resulting pattern but to be identified following strategic options testing.

D01 Garden City, growing an existing city Urbed, 2014. 3 major urban extensions in a 'snowflake' pattern. Yes - needs Follows same distribution as Edge of Uxcester Garden Doubles population of existing city of 200,000 to further Cambridge options, but at a significantly City Wolfson 400,000, through extensions of 50,000 people consideration greater scale such that the footprint of Economics Prize each. developed land would include elements of submission other options including current villages. D02 New living campus clusters Mae: Urcadia Clusters of development in 1km2 of varying Yes - needs Unclear what spatial distribution this option densities and resulting scales: 10,000 people - further would have. Requires further consideration. 25,000 people consideration

D03 Town cluster; village cluster; village VeloCity Villages w/in 7 mile radius of local centres/PT Yes - needs Unclear what spatial distribution this option hubs grouped into 3-4 clusters of 4-6 villages further would have. Requires further consideration. each w/in 1-2 miles of each other. Each village consideration takes on a specific role for the cluster, and takes 600-1,000 homes on high density plots. Cars removed from villages.

191

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? D04 Town Centre Intensification 5th Studio This typology involves the intensification of No Same as Densification CamMKOx existing town or city centres. Such an approach typologies has the potential to make the most efficient use of existing infrastructure by concentrating development in the most accessible and sustainable locations. As well as providing space for new homes, these areas have the potential to provide new or expanded higher-order facilities and amenities in anticipation of the general increase in population within the areas that these centre serve (through the deployment of other typologies say, in particular the “linked places” typologies). D05 Suburban Intensification 5th Studio Suburban intensification in areas of opportunity: No Same as Densification CamMKOx certain forms of 20th century suburban typologies development such as open plan council housing estates, and the large areas of often underused and marginal green space around road infrastructure in the later New Towns (e.g. Northampton, Peterborough and Milton Keynes), may offer more potential. Much of this “Space Left Over after Planning” would benefit from sensitive intervention to better frame highways and open space, and remains in single, most often public, ownership, making larger-scale, coordinated development possible D06 Edge Intensification 5th Studio Retrofit of peripheral, low density, and currently Yes - needs Possibly addressed via Densification / Edge CamMKOx monocultural employment, retail and leisure further of Cambridge options, albeit retrofitting typologies areas, to diversify their use and make more consideration existing areas of development would result in efficient use of the land growth in different locations than if growth were to take place on new edge of Cambridge sites.

192

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? D07 Strong Edge and Satellite 5th Studio This type of development is a satellite settlement No Same as Dispersal: new settlements. CamMKOx distinct from, but closely linked to, a neighbouring typologies existing place. The distance out may vary, but the quality of the connection to the city is vital. The separation of the settlement, as opposed to it being directly connected to the host city, may be due to constraints on growth at the edge of the city itself. Some examples are flood plains or green belt designation, or because of the suitability of particular locations of radial public transport routes. As with the Edge Intensification / Edge City typology, it is important that locations developed according to this typology have their own identity, sense of place, and local facilities (appropriate for the scale of the settlement) within walking/cycling distance, as well as having a primary connection to key locations within the host settlement..

D08 Compact City - Urban Extension 5th Studio A development linked to the existing No Same as Edge of Cambridge: Outside Green CamMKOx town centre, principally by convenient and quick Belt and Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt typologies walking and cycling routes, that actively discourages motor transport. D09 New Small Settlement 5th Studio small-scale, deliverable settlements with a strong No Same as Dispersal: new settlements CamMKOx sense of identity and community and easy typologies access to the countryside. A settlement that could also benefit from the economies of scale necessary to make good transport infrastructure and access to higher-order functions affordable and sustainable. Suggested locations include on transport corridors linked to larger population centres.

193

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? D10 New Town 5th Studio the population is large enough to justify a station No Same as Dispersal: new settlements CamMKOx on the national rail network, with the station being typologies a defining feature of the place, but small (and compact) enough that walking and cycling are able to provide for most internal journeys. Specifically in terms of the chosen case study location, it is assumed that the settlement would justify a new station on East West Rail, even if the line is delivered as a fast regional line with relatively few stops – in a way that multiple smaller settlements could not. D11 String City 5th Studio a number of smaller linked settlements. However, Yes - needs Possibly addressed via Dispersal: New CamMKOx in this case these smaller settlements are further Settlements and Dispersal: Villages. Requires typologies assumed to aggregate together to create a place consideration further exploration of sufficient scale to be thought of as a city, rather than connecting to, and remaining subservient to, an existing larger-scale “central place”. This typology is therefore based on the new agglomeration having, over time, a large degree of self-containment, its own higher der services and a greater degree of national connectivity than the preceding “new town” typology. The component parts of this typology might vary in scale and in character, and might include existing places as well as new ones. Their totality would be defined by the high degree of connectivity between them. This would most likely be achieved through a new, and in the case of existing towns or villages retro-fitted, high quality public transport network.

D12 New City 5th Studio population of at least 250,000 - similar to Milton No Same as Dispersal: new settlements CamMKOx Keynes today - and would be largely self- typologies contained in terms of jobs and services, serving as a new regional centre for its hinterland.

194

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? D13 Minimum growth Cambridge Minimum Growth would preserve the City of Yes - needs Absolute minimum growth was not explored Futures, 2000 Cambridge and surrounding South further as a First Conversation option. Cambridgeshire with the minimum change. All consideration new dwellings and business floorspace would be allocated to East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire.

D14 Densification Cambridge Densification would put the maximum No Same as Densification Futures, 2000 development in the City of Cambridge where demand is highest. Dwellings and business floorspace would be allocated predominantly to the city, so higher buildings in a more compact form would be allowed to replace existing low- density development. D15 Necklace Cambridge Necklace would be the continuation of the policy No Same as Dispersal: New Settlements and Futures, 2000 which has existed for the last fifty years; it would Dispersal: Villages produce only minimum growth in the city and green belt, with more growth in existing and new villages and in the main market towns. D16 Green Swap Cambridge Green Swap would allow development in No Same as Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt Futures, 2000 selected areas of the green belt which are of less scenic value and/or are not available for public use. In return for such permission, developers would provide equivalent or enhanced amenities for the public farther out of town D17 Transport Links Cambridge Transport Links envisages all further No Same as Public Transport Corridors Futures, 2000 development as happening within easy access of a public transport corridor. It would include more intensive use of the existing lines and reinstatement of the St Ives–Huntingdon line. D18 Virtual Highway Cambridge Virtual Highway proposes a high- capacity Yes Futures, 2000 electronic communications system that would provide instant business and personal communication for work, education, retail and other services. It is based on a concept of a multimedia super-corridor where audio, computer and visual communications are interconnected.

195

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? D19 New Town Cambridge New Town would concentrate most of the No Same as Dispersal: New Settlements Futures, 2000 development in a single location, large enough to make the new town an alternative to the City of Cambridge. It would necessitate investment in new transport links to the city. D20 Copenhagen Green Finger Plan Centre for Public Directed urban housing and business Yes - needs Close to Public Transport Corridors option, Impact Case Study developments alongside five train lines and further but takes the idea to the ultimate extent. roads, separated by green areas for recreation. consideration These urbanised areas formed the fingers, while the city centre could be seen as the palm of the hand. The station proximity principle (stationsnærhedsprincippe) allowed for new housing, businesses, and public services to be erected only close to train stations; The green wedge principle worked to preserve the green spaces between these urban settlements. D21 Net zero growth Officer idea Drawing on the idea that climate change Yes - needs Further consideration of spatial implications legislation has greater weight than national further required. planning policy, restrict all village growth and only consideration locate growth in environmentally sustainable locations including Cambridge, Cambourne and new settlements. Ignore policy designations such as Green Belt.

196

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? D22 Spatial urbanism approach Officer idea • Centres and nodes first - focussing new Yes - needs Further consideration of spatial implications development at existing centres/interchanges further required. and prioritising land and optimising density within consideration 400m and 800m walking distances. Areas and settlements with railway stations land within 1000m/5minute cycle ride should be prioritised for development. Guided bus stops are a form of interchange and could also form part of this. • Compact growth/intensification in rural locations that fall within a theoretical 5 mile/30-minute cycle ride of Cambridge, especially settlements with railway stations and Rapid Transit stops such as Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Apply the above compact criteria of optimising land within 400m/800m of centres (this could provide the theoretical settlement boundary, refined through other constraints such as ecology). Interestingly applying a 30 minute ‘golden’ cycling distance this includes the settlements of: • Intensification/edge expansion of settlements served by East-West Rail, releasing and prioritising land within 1000m/5minute cycle ride of new railway station. • Any potential new compact settlement located on East-West Rail/existing trainline – compact form, with shape more-or-less concentric, new settlement extent and radius from centre dictated by 5-10minute cycle ride D23 Nature first Officer idea Shape a spatial strategy based upon first Yes considering the best opportunities for habitats and wildlife.

197

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? E01 Preserving the Green Lung First Conversation Protecting the green belt around Cambridge thus No Edge of Cambridge: non-Green Belt explicitly response, Q42 preventing urban sprawl and retaining the explores the potential to avoid development character of Cambridge around Cambridge.

E02 Housing in close proximity to First Conversation Provide residential development in locations to Yes employment/innovation centres response, Q42 support the growth of the employment sector. The location of employment areas such as the Innovation Corridor are generally in rural areas. As such there is a limited number of dwellings which could serve employees of such institutes. By providing residential development in close proximity, skilled workers will continue to be attracted to such institutions. It will assist in the reduction of journeys to and from employment sites by motor vehicle given the opportunities to cycle or walk. This will assist the Greater Cambridge Authority in meeting their key themes within the Plan. E03 Tied cottages /key worker housing First Conversation Employers provide housing in close proximity to Yes response, Q42 place of employment to reduce the need to travel

E04 The Manchester Model First Conversation Creating sustainable transport links, reducing the No A range of First Conversation options seek to response, Q42 number of trips needed by car and increasing enable sustainable transport opportunities. journeys by bike, foot and public transport.

198

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? E05 The 'Gruene Finger' First Conversation The towns grow out into the country-side from Yes response, Q42 existing settlements but always with green space secured alongside and decent cycle paths, so you can cycle across town over grass and through trees; a good example is Osnabrück

E06 Focus development to the east side of the city First Conversation “the east side of the city offers significant scope No Addressed through Edge of Cambridge response, Q42 for housing and commercial development. Such options development would have the advantage of being close to the principal centres of employment and the existing rail infrastructure whilst also opening up opportunities for new transport links to connect the main centres of employment more effectively. Most significantly, it includes land which has previously been safeguarded for development, and is within the boundaries of the existing urban area so would provide opportunities in line with the existing spatial strategy” CPIER p42. E07 Blended spatial strategy First Conversation a 'blended spatial strategy' of four possible No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First response, Q42 scenarios. The scenarios considered included: Conversation options, which are all described - densification as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely - dispersal resulting pattern but to be identified following - fringe growth strategic options testing. - transport corridors

E08 The A428 Corridor First Conversation The A428 corridor running due west of Yes response, Q42 Cambridge to Cambourne and St Neots presents a broad transport corridor that is due to receive substantial investment in relation to East West rail (including new station at Cambourne) and the Cambridge Automated Metro. Both of these transport interventions will provide a good choice of sustainable transport modes within this growth corridor and are due to be constructed before 2030.

199

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? E09 Key principles First Conversation In areas with access to existing/planned public No These principles are addressed through a response, Q42 transport links; range of the First Conversation options. • In areas with good provision of cycleways/pedestrian linkages; • In areas well connected to local employment ; and • In key villages with services or local existing/planned employment E10 Sustainable self-contained communities First Conversation The fundamental requirement is that every No Addressed through Dispersal: New response, Q42 significant development must create, or be part Settlements option of, a sustainable self-contained community with all of accommodation, amenity, education, and employment.

E11 Sustainable Transport Focus First Conversation Sites should be chosen on their ability to satisfy No No clear option proposed. response, Q42 sustainable transport goals and shift the overwhelming majority of jurneys from cars to walking, cycling and public transport. If a realistic Transport Assessment cannot achieve this then the site should not be considered suitable for development. Furthermore, the location and compactness of development is only part of the story: to reduce car usage you cannot give away money, land and resources in ways that enable unnecessary usage of cars E12 Development on the edge of Cambridge with First Conversation Develop areas on the edge of the city but with an No Addressed through Edge of Cambridge reprovision of green belt to compensate response, Q42 equivalent area of land added to the Greenbelt options further out from Cambridge

200

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? E13 Sustainable villages First Conversation The scale of development that occurs at No Addressed through Dispersal: Villages option response, Q42 individual villages will depend on the level of services and facilities.

E14 Edge of Cambridge at public transport nodes First Conversation Development at the edge of Cambridge at public No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First response, Q42 transport nodes and on land outside of green Conversation options, which are all described belt and in Cambridge Green belt. The East West as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely rail corridor could provide major locations for resulting pattern but to be identified following larger development and/or new settlements. strategic options testing.

E15 Flexible approach First Conversation Allow developments in sustainable locations to No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First response, Q42 ensure there is a balance of homes and jobs in Conversation options, which are all described the right place. It is important to ensure that a as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely range of small sites are allocated in the Local resulting pattern but to be identified following Plan to ensure that these can be delivered in the strategic options testing. short to medium term. The Local Plan should not overly-rely on large strategic allocations which are complex to deliver and rely on costly infrastructure to proceed. E16 Brownfield Sites First First Conversation Development should, where possible, be directed Yes response, Q42 to existing brownfield sites; in particular, within urban areas.

E17 Airport site First Conversation Should Cambridge Airport relocate and its land No Addressed through Edge of Cambridge response, Q42 be released, this would offer up a significant options. development opportunity.

201

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? E18 Major new developments First Conversation Major new developments appear to be the main No Addressed through Edge of Cambridge response, Q42 component of meeting the growth targets for options housing and employment. It follows that sites with good transport connections are preferable.

E19 A combination of all suggested First Conversation No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First response, Q42 Conversation options, which are all described as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely resulting pattern but to be identified following strategic options testing.

E20 Hybrid of new communities and small scale First Conversation Large scale in new well located , highly green No Hybrid - not clearly distinct from First extensions to existing villages response, Q42 communities . Conversation options, which are all described Small scale as rural exception sites on edge of as a 'Focus on…'. Hybrid option most likely well located sustainable established resulting pattern but to be identified following communities. strategic options testing.

E21 ‘Nature recovery network' First Conversation The plan should map a ‘nature recovery network’ Yes response, Q42 as a framework to guide essential development. Water and water sources are a vital part of this connectivity, as are drains, streams, rivers, lakes and ponds. A ‘nature recovery network’ must include these aquatic elements at the same time as identifying new large-scale areas for habitat creation, including new woodlands and areas of natural regeneration, and opportunities for linking them all together. The plan should recognise that ‘flooding’, which will be increasingly likely with climate change, can be mitigated upstream by slowing river drainage. This ‘natural’ approach would require a reversion to an earlier pattern of agricultural land-use management with wet meadows and less arable land in the flood plain itself.

202

Ref. Option/Principle/Concept name Source Description Sifting: take Sifting comments forward for full testing? E22 Densification around sustainable transport links First Conversation Build taller buildings around sustainable transport No Addressed through Densification option. response, Q45 links such as Cambridge North

203

Annex C. Full testing of short-listed additional ideas

204

Revisit of sources that informed First Conversation options Option A0: Current strategy Source • Plan/Project: Cambridge Local Plan 2018 / South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018

• Specific document: Adopted Cambridge Local Plan 2018 / Adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 Description (from source) (Cambridge Local Plan 2.27) The preferred sequential approach for new development can be described as: • (first) being within the existing urban area of Cambridge; • (second) being within the defined fringe sites on the edge of Cambridge; • (third) within the six small-scale Green Belt sites proposed to be released from the inner Green Belt boundary, four of which are within the city; • (fourth) within existing and newly identified new settlement locations at Cambourne, Northstowe, Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach; and • lastly in identified villages.

South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2.22 The distribution of housing across the development sequence in the adopted Local Plans is shown below:

Purpose/effects (from source) Sequential approach to development is in principle the most sustainable • provide as many new homes as close to new jobs as possible to minimise commuting and to minimise and mitigate harmful effects for the environment, climate change and quality of life.

205

• Balance above aim with protecting the purposes of Cambridge Green Belt, which aims to protect the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic centre, maintain and enhance the quality of the city’s setting, and prevent the city merging with the ring of necklace villages. The Green Belt and its purposes help underpin the quality of life and place in Cambridge, which are fundamental to economic success. • Provide new homes in locations that are or can be supported by transport and other infrastructure Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly • Yes – by definition this Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire development strategy is relevant to this area. • No – the choices available to the councils now are somewhat different, in that the strategy choices made in the adopted plans impact on residual capacity in the sources of supply. The balance of the distribution of homes and jobs might therefore be different. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 1: A0 - Example growth option diagram

South Cambridgeshire District Council, 2018. South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, Figure 1: Key Diagram for South Cambridgeshire, p29

206

Description Sequential approach taken to distributing growth as follows, relying on capacity of each source of supply and only using the next source of supply within the settlement hierarchy if required by the growth level scenario: • First, as much growth as possible focused on the urban area of Cambridge, as determined by capacity. • Second, growth focused on remaining edge of Cambridge fringe sites outside of Green Belt, as determined by capacity. • Third, limited growth focused on edge of Cambridge within Green Belt • Fourth, growth focused in one or more new settlements, assumed to be within south west or south east quadrants linked to existing or proposed high quality public transport infrastructure • Fifth, remaining growth focused on rural centres and minor rural centres

Substantively different to existing options? • No – This option focuses growth as far as reasonably possible in the Cambridge Urban Area, so would likely be close to a high growth scenario under the Densification option, for which additional growth locations need to be identified. Reasonable? N/A

207

Option A03: Dispersal (sub-regional) Source • Plan/Project: Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review – Final Report

• Specific document: Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review – Final Report Description (from source) A dispersal strategy is where new houses and jobs are created outside of the primary urban areas of Cambridge and Peterborough, mainly in the market towns. It could also involve the creation of new towns and villages where previously there was only farmland/countryside. Purpose/effects (from source) Advantages: • Bringing new homes and jobs to towns and villages where populations are ageing could bring new life into them. • If market towns can develop their own unique selling points (as some in the area have successfully done) then they may attract small business ‘clusters’. • Market towns have some quality of life advantages and may enjoy close communities. Disadvantages: • Uncertainty over how likely it is that sufficient jobs would move into the market towns to make dispersal work on a large scale. In some cases it may, but it would be high risk to attempt to build many houses in the hope that jobs would follow. • If jobs did not arise on a dispersed strategy, commuting problems into cities will intensify, and a growing sense that the towns are merely ‘dormitories’ will develop.

A ‘jobs-first’ approach to market towns, which focuses first on bringing employment, and then second on housing, is preferable. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly: • Yes – Greater Cambridge is surrounded by market towns such as St Neots, Huntingdon, St Ives, Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill, Saffron Walden and Royston. • Yes – Notwithstanding the above, growth could be located in settlements outside of Cambridge urban area such as at the committed new settlements, as well as at market towns beyond the boundary of South Cambridgeshire. • Yes - Royston is a market town that adjoins the boundary of South Cambridgeshire. In theory this settlement could be expanded within the boundary of South Cambridgeshire. • No – the geographical scope of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan (stated explicitly to be relevant to consideration of reasonable options in the Strategic

208

Environmental Assessment Directive) is limited to Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 2: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Source: Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Commission, 2018. Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review - Final Report, p19

Description Employment and housing growth focused in committed and/or new settlements within Greater Cambridge, and in market towns beyond Greater Cambridge, such as at St Neots, Huntingdon, St Ives, Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill, Saffron Walden and Royston. Substantively different to existing options? • Yes – The First Conversation consultation did not include any options considering growth extending beyond Greater Cambridge boundaries. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Partly: • No – a strategy that focused growth beyond the boundaries of Greater Cambridge would be incompatible with NPPF para. 35 requiring plans to be

209

Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs. • Yes – a strategy that focused growth within Greater Cambridge but was based on agreement with neighbouring authorities about their taking unmet needs beyond the boundaries of Greater Cambridge could be compatible with national policy. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown – assume Yes. o It is assumed that there is some capacity for growth in market towns beyond Greater Cambridge, although this is not known for certain. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Yes. o The locations of and typologies for growth passed to neighbouring districts cannot be assumed, as this would be a matter for each relevant Local Planning Authority. As such, it is not possible to assess whether this option would be limited by environmental constraints. However, given the land area included in neighbouring districts, it seems reasonable to assume that there is land available for some growth which is not limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown o The locations of and typologies for growth passed to neighbouring districts cannot be assumed, as this would be a matter for each relevant Local Planning Authority. As such, it is not possible to assess even at a high level whether this option would be viable. • Deliverability: Unknown, assume challenging o As noted above, it is uncertain how likely it is that sufficient jobs would move into the market towns beyond Greater Cambridge to make dispersal work on a large scale: . It would be high risk to attempt to build many houses in the hope that jobs would follow. . If jobs did not arise on a dispersed strategy, commuting problems into cities will intensify, and a growing sense that the towns are merely ‘dormitories’ will develop. o Agreeing to pass on growth to neighbouring districts could be a challenging political and legal process, including but not limited to the following issues: . Any dispersal of growth beyond Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire would need agreement under the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring bodies. . Without a sub-regional strategic statutory plan, the appropriateness of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan might be reliant on other plan processes that are not aligned in timetable.

210

. Without a sub-regional strategic statutory plan, it is challenging to see how Sustainability Appraisal for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan could appropriately test options extending beyond the Greater Cambridge geography

Drawing on the above, it is not considered reasonable to test this option further, as it is not compliant with national policy, and goes beyond the scope of what reasonable options are as set out in SEA Regulations.

211

Spatial principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework Principle B04: Integrate uses including housing and employment Source • Plan/Project: National Planning Policy Framework, 2019. Paragraph 92 Description (from source) Planning policies and decisions should…ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services. Purpose/effects (from source) To provide the social, recreational, and cultural facilities and services the community needs. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – relevant in any spatial context. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Growth distributions that would integrate housing, economic uses, facilities and services could include: • Growth focused in areas close to existing infrastructure and services, such as within Cambridge • New housing growth focused in sufficient concentrations so as to generate demand for economic uses and community facilities and services, such as at new settlements. • While many locations close to Cambridge could be considered as key employment areas, one possible interpretation of an integrated approach to locating housing, jobs would be to focus growth to the south of Cambridge close to research parks within the biotech cluster. This area to date has seen employment but not significant housing or infrastructure growth. The Greater Norwich approach built on an area of growth of all uses. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • Yes – southern cluster approach would focus growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology-specific) location which is not considered through First Conversation options. • No – focus of growth within Cambridge or at new settlements is already addressed by First Conversation options. Reasonable? Reasonable: national policy? Yes – this option is derived from the NPPF. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o It is assumed that there is some capacity for growth. o The area, south of Cambridge is relatively undeveloped with several small settlements located parallel with the M11. Extensions to these

212

include considerable risk of settlement coalescence. Whilst there is more capacity for growth in areas either side of the A1307, the need for substantial infrastructure to support large scale residential development would need to be balanced against its environmental impact. • Environmental constraints: Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. o The area is predominantly rural/agricultural and therefore significant development would have an impact on the area’s character and environmental qualities. It can however be assumed that some areas will not be limited by absolute environmental constraints. o However, the River Granta flows through this area and feds into the River Cam. Any significant development in the area affecting its flow e.g., with increased run-off or flow rates would potentially have an impact on the River Cam and Cambridge. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes but challenging. o A single growth location can be assumed to be viable but very much dependent on size of growth. Considerations include: . A balance between sustainable residential growth and environmental impact will need to be identified. Sufficient housing growth will be necessary for the development to be viable to deliver the necessary infrastructure including transport improvements. o Expanding existing settlements would be more viable but limited in capacity to avoid settlement coalescence and therefore limited in terms of necessary infrastructure improvements • Deliverability: Unknown – assume yes but challenging. o Deliverability is very much dependent on scale of permissible development. o As noted above, it is uncertain as to how much residential growth could be provided that provides sufficient infrastructure to be sustainable without adversely affecting either the immediate area or areas beyond. o Expanding existing villages would be more feasible

213

Principle B05: Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport infrastructure Source • Plan/Project: National Planning Policy Framework, 2019. para 102,103

Description (from source) Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated. Purpose/effects (from source) Reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – there are current and proposed transport infrastructure projects in Greater Cambridge that could support future growth. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Growth focused along key transport corridors into Cambridge, including those provided for by the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro and East West Rail proposals.

One potential interpretation of this principle would be to focus growth on the corridor to the west of Cambridge, which will be provided for by the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro and East West Rail proposals. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • No – Densification option would enable consideration of appropriate locations for higher densities related to public transport infrastructure. • No – Dispersal: New Settlements option description notes that such opportunities would rely on being connected to the strategic transport network. • No – Public Transport Corridors option addresses growth opportunities relying on existing and proposed public transport infrastructure. • Yes – Notwithstanding the above, First Conversation options do not focus all growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology-specific) location. Reasonable? Considering only an option focusing growth on the corridor to the west of Cambridge. Reasonable: national policy? Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 102 on realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o It is assumed that there is capacity for development close to Cambourne.

214

o It is assumed that there may be capacity for development at the villages along the A428 corridor. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes. o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing or expanding new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Deliverability will depend on locations and typologies of development: . Delivery assumed to be supported by being close to strategic public transport infrastructure . Delivery rates are assumed to be affected by locating a number of developments close to one another. . New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation of how much of a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan. . Developer contributions on individual smaller sites do not generate substantive contributions to support major transport and other infrastructure provision. As such, an option that focused growth towards smaller sites might result in cumulative impacts on the transport network, for which it might be hard to collect sufficient funds to mitigate. Over time this could lead to an infrastructure deficit that might make such a strategy undeliverable in the long term.

215

Principle B12: Proportionate growth approach (focus growth in locations that make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness) Source • Plan/Project: National Planning Policy Framework, 2019. para 102,103 Description (from source) Include strategic options that...make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness (ie. maintain the current relative roles of settlements within the settlement hierarchy, distributing growth proportionate to locations relative to current size).

Note that this is a very specific way of reading the implication of NPPF para. 185. To extract principle for the purposes of identifying potential impacts on strategy options. Many other readings of the implications of this are possible. In reality, any spatial option could affect local character and distinctiveness, particularly under higher growth scenarios. Purpose/effects (from source) Make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – there is capacity for growth at locations across the settlement hierarchy within Greater Cambridge. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Proportionate growth relative to current or committed size of settlement, such that the most growth would be distributed to the location at the start of this list and the least growth to the locations at the end of this list: Cambridge, Waterbeach, Northstowe, Cambourne, largest villages, smaller villages. . Substantively different to existing options? • No - Likely be close to a high growth scenario under the Densification option, for which additional growth locations need to be identified.

Note this is similar to A0: Current strategy. Reasonable? N/A

Plan-making practice in the UK Option C03: Supporting an existing high-tech corridor Source • Plan/Project: Greater Norwich Joint Local Plan

• Specific document: Towards A Strategy – Greater Norwich Development Partnership 29th January 2019

216

Description (from source) Concentrate the great majority of the additional 3,300 dwellings in the A11 corridor, with significant growth in the south west fringe, Wymondham and a new settlement in or near the corridor.

“Strategic growth area” broadly defined to include: • The City of Norwich; • The suburbs/fringe parishes which make up the rest of the urban area; • All the strategic employment areas, Norwich City Centre, Norwich Research Park, Longwater/the Food Hub, Wymondham, Hethel, the Norwich Airport area, Broadland Business Park, Broadland Gate and Rackheath. These areas provide for growth of the key employment sectors identified in the Norfolk and Suffolk Economic Plan. Local evidence shows that all of the strategic employment locations have the potential for jobs and business growth; • Around 80% of total housing growth (existing commitment and emerging distribution); • All but one of the strategic scale housing growth locations (locations with 1,000 dwellings +); • High quality public transport, road and cycling infrastructure (existing and planned); • The great majority of brownfield sites in the area. Purpose/effects (from source) Maximise economic growth potential by • Support existing growth in an existing corridor, building on existing infrastructure • Link with wider growth corridors • Provides a focused area to promote to partners for further investment • Link to the city of Norwich as a driver of the regional economy, supporting its vitality and regeneration. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly • Yes – the most focused high-tech corridor in Greater Cambridge is the cluster of biotech organisations south of Cambridge, as a part of the UK's Innovation Corridor (London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor). • No - South of Cambridge area to date has seen employment but not significant housing or infrastructure growth. The Greater Norwich approach built on an area of growth of all uses. • No – In some ways the whole of Greater Cambridge could be considered a high-tech area.

217

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 3: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Description Focus growth within the life sciences cluster area to the south of Cambridge.

218

Substantively different to existing options? • Yes – focuses growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology- specific) location which is not considered through First Conversation options. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Yes: • Integration of housing and jobs is supported by NPPF para. 92. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o The area, south of Cambridge is relatively undeveloped with several small settlements located parallel with the M11 - it is assumed that there is some capacity for growth. • Environmental constraints: Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. o The area is predominantly rural/agricultural and therefore significant development would have an impact on the area’s character and environmental qualities. It can however be assumed that some areas will not be limited by absolute environmental constraints. o However, the River Granta flows through this area and feeds into the River Cam. Any significant development in the area affecting its flow e.g., with increased run-off or flow rates would potentially have an impact on the River Cam and Cambridge. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes. o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing or expanding new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Deliverability will depend on locations and typologies of development: . Delivery assumed to be supported by being close to strategic public transport infrastructure . Delivery rates are assumed to be affected by locating a number of developments close to one another. . New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation of how much of a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

219

. Developer contributions on individual smaller sites do not generate substantive contributions to support major transport and other infrastructure provision. As such, an option that focused growth towards smaller sites might result in cumulative impacts on the transport network, for which it might be hard to collect sufficient funds to mitigate. Over time this could lead to an infrastructure deficit that might make such a strategy undeliverable in the long term.

Option C08: Expanded growth area Source • Plan/Project: Bedford Borough Local Plan 2032

• Specific document: Development Strategy and Site Selection Methodology Background Paper, September 2015 Description (from source) • Existing growth area would expand through urban extensions and development adjoining the existing growth area. • Limited development in the remaining rural area, mostly village infilling. • Development in open countryside restricted in line with government policy. Purpose/effects (from source) Sustainability appraisal criteria This option is likely to have the following positive effects – • maximise land use efficiency and encourage sustainable travel within the expanded growth area

220

• preserve open countryside, including its habitats and species, although to a lesser extent than under option 1 • contribute to the achievement of economic growth through concentrating economic development • make a positive contribution to town centre development • reduce deprivation in the most deprived wards, which are located in the existing growth area • reduce the need to travel and commute outward. This option is likely to have the following negative effects – • increase emissions from transport and construction (temporary effect) in the existing growth area • increase resource consumption (energy, water, land) and waste production • increase pressure for development of open land adjoining the existing growth area, potentially affecting habitats and species • may mean further decline of rural economies, services and employment • do little to help meet the need for housing, services, and facilities outside of growth area • may increase exclusion and inequalities, and further increase deprivation in terms of access to essential services in the rural area • cause rural public transport to decline further. Deliverability criteria • Concentrating growth would risk the delivery of existing large committed sites in the growth area. • Growth area villages would have to absorb further significant growth before recently created communities had matured. • Locations in the A421 corridor are attractive to potential employers and close to labour markets. • Concentrating development is likely to maximise infrastructure opportunities. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly: • No – the sequential development strategy of the adopted Local Plans locates significant growth in a range of different locations within Greater Cambridge, as opposed to being within a limited area or corridor. • Yes – in terms of concentrations of growth outside of Cambridge within the adopted Local Plans and previous rounds of plan-making, the most significant growth has been allocated to the north and west of Cambridge, at Cambourne, Bourn Airfield, Northstowe and Waterbeach. A possible interpretation of expanding a growth area in a Greater Cambridge context would be to focus growth in this broad area of South Cambridgeshire.

221

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 4: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Local Plan 2032 - Planning for the future Issues and Options Paper, 2014

Description Focus growth to the west and north of Cambridge, expanding development at and in the area of existing and committed new settlements.

One potential interpretation of this principle would be to focus further growth on the A428 corridor to the west of Cambridge, which includes Cambourne and its expansion at Cambourne West, as well as allocated development at Bourn Airfield.

Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • No – growth areas outside of Cambridge at new settlements are all on public transport corridors. Focusing growth to the west and north of Cambridge, expanding development at and in the area of existing and committed new settlements, is addressed through Public Transport Corridor option.

222

• Yes – in relation to the A428 corridor focus, First Conversation options do not focus all growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology-specific) location. Reasonable? Considering only an option focusing growth on the corridor to the west of Cambridge. Reasonable: national policy? Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 102 on realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o It is assumed that there is capacity for development close to Cambourne. o It is assumed that there may be capacity for development at the villages along the A428 corridor. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes. o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing or expanding new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Deliverability will depend on locations and typologies of development: . Delivery assumed to be supported by being close to strategic public transport infrastructure . Delivery rates are assumed to be affected by locating a number of developments close to one another. . New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation of how much of a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan. . Developer contributions on individual smaller sites do not generate substantive contributions to support major transport and other infrastructure provision. As such, an option that focused growth towards smaller sites might result in cumulative impacts on the transport network, for which it might be hard to collect sufficient funds to mitigate. Over time this could lead to 223

an infrastructure deficit that might make such a strategy undeliverable in the long term.

224

Option C13: All development located in the high-tech growth area (All in Science Vale) Source • Plan/Project: South Oxfordshire Local Plan

• Specific document: South Oxfordshire Local Plan - draft topic paper Description (from source) All additional housing in Science Vale (note this option considers distribution of housing only; not employment land). Purpose/effects (from source) Pros • Based on locating housing where it can support growth • Provides a focus for the delivery of infrastructure and services potentially at a more competitive return • Supports the aspirations of the Science Vale Area Action Plan Cons • Some of the smaller settlements might miss out on some desired growth for local affordable housing for example • Timescales and funding needed for the infrastructure required to support this level of growth is untested • Could create housing market saturation in Science Vale by concentrating development in one area • There is a risk that relying on a few larger sites with high infrastructure requirements would not deliver homes fast enough to maintain our five year land supply Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – focuses growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology- specific) location which is not considered through First Conversation options.

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 5: B1 - Example growth option diagram

None available Description All growth located within the life sciences cluster area to the south of Cambridge. Substantively different to existing options? • Yes – locates all growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology- specific) location which is not considered through First Conversation options. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Yes:

225

• Integration of housing and jobs is supported by NPPF para. 92. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o The area, south of Cambridge is relatively undeveloped with several small settlements located parallel with the M11 - it is assumed that there is some capacity for growth. • Environmental constraints: Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. o The area is predominantly rural/agricultural and therefore significant development would have an impact on the area’s character and environmental qualities. It can however be assumed that some areas will not be limited by absolute environmental constraints. o However, the River Granta flows through this area and feeds into the River Cam. Any significant development in the area affecting its flow e.g., with increased run-off or flow rates would potentially have an impact on the River Cam and Cambridge. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes. o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing or expanding new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Deliverability will depend on locations and typologies of development: . Delivery assumed to be supported by being close to strategic public transport infrastructure . Delivery rates are assumed to be affected by locating a number of developments close to one another. . New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation of how much of a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan. . Developer contributions on individual smaller sites do not generate substantive contributions to support major transport and other infrastructure provision. As such, an option that focused growth towards smaller sites might result in cumulative impacts on the transport network, for which it might be hard to collect sufficient funds to mitigate. Over time this could lead to

226

an infrastructure deficit that might make such a strategy undeliverable in the long term.

227

Option C18: Locating development in particular settlements where it could help fund projects Source • Plan/Project: South Oxfordshire Plan • Specific document: Draft Topic Paper – Local Plan Spatial Strategy Description (from source) Public money to fund infrastructure is in short supply. Sometimes the only way that big scale improvements or expansions can be paid for is through development. By the community taking housing development, the council and county council can require housebuilders to contribute towards infrastructure projects. These could be, for example, a new road, a new river bridge, or a new or expanded school. The scale of growth to fund such ‘big ticket’ items is likely to be quite large, but we would like to know if there are any communities which would welcome investigation of this option. Another route for communities to look at enhanced growth to fund a ‘big ticket’ project is through preparing a neighbourhood plan. Purpose/effects (from source) Pros • Would achieve much needed benefits for some communities • Fits well with neighbourhood planning where communities weigh up for themselves whether to opt for this Cons • May require significant amounts of housing to achieve the benefit sought.

Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – New settlements are an option under consideration in Greater Cambridge. These could help finance improvements along existing public transport corridors. Specific projects for which this approach is a live issue include East West Rail Central Section, and the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Growth focused along key corridors into Cambridge, including: • At Cambourne where an East West Rail station is proposed; and • On proposed Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro routes into Cambridge. Substantively different to existing options? • No – Dispersal - new settlements and Public transport corridors were both considered through First Conversation options Reasonable? N/A

228

Option C22: Spokes and hubs Source • Plan/Project: Oxfordshire Plan 2050

• Specific document: Introducing the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Description (from source) Continue to focus on Oxford and key corridors into Oxford. Purpose/effects (from source) • Concentrates transport along routes that are already at high capacity • May offer opportunities for funding to enhance strategic corridors • This would not help 'spread the load' of new development, but would mean improving existing infrastructure, which might be efficient, but much will depend on the potential of existing infrastructure to be improved to take new development Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – there are key corridors into Cambridge, which are supported by existing and proposed transport schemes. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 6: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Description Growth focused at Cambridge, and along key public transport corridors into Cambridge. Substantively different to existing options? • No – this is a hybrid of Densification and Public Transport corridor options.

Reasonable? N/A

229

Concept C25: ‘String’ settlement/ settlement cluster Source • Plan/Project: Oxfordshire Plan 2050

• Specific document: Introducing the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Description (from source) Development focused on a number of linked settlements. It could involve new and/or existing/expanded settlements Purpose/effects (from source) May or may not be close to existing high-quality transport corridors Relies on there being suitable broad locations available for this type of development This may involve promoting development at some existing, currently small, settlements, which may significantly change their character A number of smaller settlements could collectively, be of sufficient scale to be served by shared infrastructure Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – development would be focused on several linked settlements and could involve new and/or existing/ expanded settlements. There are many settlements varying in size from small villages to larger settlements across Greater Cambridge, where development could be spread.

230

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 7: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Description Growth spread across a number of existing and new developments in South Cambridgeshire. Further work required to explore opportunities. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • No – This option was not a specific option in the First Conversation options but a combination of Dispersal: new settlements, Dispersal: villages, and Public Transport Corridors. • Yes – Development is spread across a number of existing and new developments, the aggregate of which is sufficient to provide substantial infrastructure including improved transport links between these settlements, reducing their reliance on existing established centres such as Cambridge. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Yes: • Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 78 in promoting sustainable development in rural areas. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown – assume Yes. o There is undeveloped land within Greater Cambridge which in theory has capacity for additional new or expanded settlements. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing or expanding new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable.

231

o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown, assume challenging o Deliverability is very much dependent on transport costs/ improvements, especially if these need to be implemented in advance of new development. Locating development along or close to existing or proposed transport corridors should support deliverability. o New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation whether a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan. o Delivering shared services and infrastructure across a number of settlements would require coordination between landowners, developers and authorities that is not current practice within the current approach to village development.

232

Option C26: ‘Wheel’ settlement cluster Source • Plan/Project: Oxfordshire Plan 2050 • Specific document: Introducing the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Description (from source) Focus on Oxford and the existing larger towns and the key corridors into Oxford and between the towns Purpose/effects (from source) • This could be a variation on the spoke and hub approach but with the added benefits of stronger links between the towns • Could take some of the pressure off the corridors into Oxford Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – there are a number of substantial existing or planned settlements within Greater Cambridge, beyond the city itself. In theory, the corridors between these settlements and Cambridge, and between the settlements themselves, could become a focus for further growth and infrastructure investment. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 8: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Figure 9: B1 - Likely distribution of growth in Greater Cambridge context

Description Growth focused at Cambridge, the existing and planned largest settlements outside of Cambridge, and the key corridors into Cambridge and between the largest settlements. New growth locations potentially to the south and/or east of Cambridge where there is currently less committed housing growth in comparison with corridors to the west and north. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • No – Focus on Cambridge and corridors into Cambridge is addressed through all Densification, Edge of Cambridge options, and Public Transport Corridors. • Yes – Focus on corridors between existing and planned largest settlements outside Cambridge is not included in First Conversation options.

233

Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Yes - compatible with NPPF para. 102 on realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown – assume Yes. o Capacity will depend on the existing transport capacity between new and existing settlements; the potential for each settlement to expand sustainably. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown. o Capacity to expand new and existing settlements may limit capacity and hence ability to cover cost of improved transport links • Deliverability: Unknown, assume challenging o Deliverability is very much dependent on transport costs/ improvements, especially if these need to be implemented in advance of new development.

234

Ideas from other sources Concept D01: Garden City, growing an existing city Source • Plan/Project: Urbed – 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize submission • Specific document: Wolfson Economics Prize 2014 – Finalists’ Submissions: Compendium of Non-Technical Summaries Description (from source) • major urban extensions in a 'snowflake' pattern. Extensions lie within a zone 10km from the city centre, which is a 20 minute tram ride, within the green belt. • Doubles population of existing city of 200,000 to 400,000, through extensions of 50,000 people each. • tram stops within 20 minutes of the city centre, neighbourhoods that are within 10 minutes walk of these tram stops, each of which supports a secondary school and its feeder primary schools, and urban extensions that have sufficient scale to support a district centre and employment uses. • for every hectare of land developed another will be given back to the city as accessible public space

Larger-scale/longer term idea Purpose/effects (from source) • High quality, larger housing, with higher environmental standards, in greater quantities and with far greater spending on infrastructure • Walkable/prioritises public transport • accessible to public space, forests, lakes and country parks • allows for incremental development • investment in new transport infrastructure and city centre facilities to benefit the existing and new residents Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Cambridge district includes a population of around 137,000. While this is lower than the 200,000 referenced in the Urbed proposal, their use of an Oxford case study (population ~150,000 suggests) that there may be at least some potential to explore the Uxcester concept in a Greater Cambridge context.

235

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 10: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Figure 11: B1 - Likely distribution of growth in Greater Cambridge context

Description • Plan period: Growth focused at edge of Cambridge and along public transport corridors. • Built out: Growth focused at Cambridge’s urban extensions on a very large scale, focused on key corridors into Cambridge. Substantively different to existing options? Plan period: No - • Focus on Cambridge and public corridors into Cambridge is addressed through all First Conversation options other than Dispersal. • Edge of Cambridge option addresses the idea of urban extensions.

Built out: Partly – • No – the pattern of growth envisaged by this Garden City concept is the same as that addressed through the Public Transport Corridor First Conversation option. • Yes – urban extensions of a scale to double the population of Cambridge were not addressed through First Conversation options. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Yes: • Yes – NPPF para. 72 supports the idea of meeting the need for new homes via larger scale development.

236

Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown o There is undeveloped land in South Cambridgeshire which could theoretically accommodate significant additional growth. It is unknown whether there would be sufficient land available to support a doubling of the population of Cambridge. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume challenging o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. It is likely that seeking to double the population of Cambridge would be impacted by constraints such as water resource capacity. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume no o It is considered that development on this scale would not be viable without a change to the current development delivery model in the Greater Cambridge area. • Deliverability: No o It is considered that development on this scale would not be viable without a change to the current development delivery model in the Greater Cambridge area. o Were such an approach to development to be deliverable in principle, of how much development could take place within the next 20 years would be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

237

Concept D02: New living campus clusters Source • Plan/Project: The Cambridge to Oxford Connection: Ideas Competition • Specific document: Mae: Urcadia Description (from source) • Clusters of communities within the New Living Campus, each with a range of homes, public spaces and other facilities, of a walkable scale, giving an average area of around 1km2 or 100 hectares, allowing a cluster to contain between 5,000 and 25,000 homes depending on the location, density and local demand. • City Campus model that can house 250,000 people in 12 clusters with a range of densities to accommodate a variety of typologies from self-build terrace to multi- level apartment block. • Each cluster of the New Living Campus could develop a specialist faculty to encourage a particular field of innovation, such as ‘Construction Material Innovation’ or ‘Biotechnology in Food Production’.

Larger-scale/longer term idea Purpose/effects (from source) • Decentralised, polycentric settlement would allow each centre to distinguish itself from others in both urban typology and technological specialism. • Each centre could accommodate a variety of densities and types of housing • Different centres could support innovation by clustering different specialisms • Creates places with enduring social and community value. • Connected to transport infrastructure • Walkable scale • Encourages the landscape to flow through and around the whole. • Flexible model (scalable): over time, individual clusters are complete, allowing green and agricultural landscape to flow between, and additional clusters to be completed to suit demand and location. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – There is undeveloped land close to existing or proposed

238

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 12: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Description Unclear. To an extent a typology to be applied in a range of contexts, rather than a spatial option.

Plan period: First phases of one or more new high-density new settlements supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge. Built out: cluster of high-density new settlements supported by strategic transport infrastructure connecting to Cambridge; opportunity for additional high density new settlements within the same area. Substantively different to existing options? Partly:

239

• Yes – Clusters of connected new settlements within a relatively small area were not explicitly considered within the First Conversation options. • No – New settlements were considered under the First Conversation Dispersal: New settlements option • No – More a typology to be applied in a range of contexts, rather than a spatial option. Reasonable? N/A Further consideration may be given to this concept in parallel to the strategic options testing, to inform later stages of the plan process.

Concept D03: Town cluster; village cluster; village (VeloCity) Source • Plan/Project: The Cambridge to Oxford Connection: Ideas Competition

• Specific document: Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design: Velocity Description (from source) Town cluster: • Existing villages within a 7 mile catchment of local centres and transport nodes such as the new stations on the East West Rail link can be grouped into 3-4 clusters of 4-6 villages . 7 miles is a comfortable distance for an adult on a daily commute to the transport interchange.

240

• This model can be repeated across the corridor wherever local centres/ transport infrastructure are located. Village clusters • Within 1-2miles of each other • Roads to the main routes are retained. Linking roads between villages are replaced with ‘Slow Lane’ cycle routes through the shared green heart of fields between the villages. The car is also removed from within the villages to create a cycle/pedestrianised centre. • Each village provides a specific service that links the cluster together such as a local produce market, schools, workplace, cultural facilities or waste recycling centres. • ‘Big Back Garden’ in the centre of each village cluster, combining active recreation with productive landscape and areas of ‘untouched’ landscape Villages • New development is focused around existing villages rather than creating new ones • Existing field patterns create a framework of 0.5ha plots where a mix of new high density housing, community facilities and infrastructure are located around the edges of a village, retaining its heart: the green, the church, the manor, the farm etc. • 20 ‘housing fields’ have the potential to provide 600-1000 new homes per village, which across the clusters could create 15,500 new homes around each interchange town. Purpose/effects (from source) • Removes dependence on car - cycling as the mainstream form of movement • Village clusters can be ‘self-sufficient’ on a daily/weekly basis along with links to the Fast Track connecting to Cambridge and Oxford • Builds on and reinvigorates villages’ unique identities and characters • ‘Big back garden’ provides an alternative healthy and socially connecting lifestyle that reinforces the attraction of living in the country Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly: • Yes – there are a number of villages within South Cambridgeshire within 7 miles of transport nodes varying in size, which in theory could be clustered and expanded as village clusters. • No – the arrangement of villages within the area of transport nodes does not in all instances lend itself to groupings within 1-2 miles of each other in an arrangement enabling shared use of a central green space.

241

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 13: B1 - Example growth option diagram

242

Figure 14: B1 - Likely distribution of growth in Greater Cambridge context

Growth spread across a number of villages with good access to Cambourne as the proposed location for a new East West Rail station within South Cambridgeshire. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • No – Dispersal: Villages considers distributing growth to villages, and Public Transport Corridors located growth along transport corridors, including at villages. • Yes – Notwithstanding the above, no single First Conversation option considered distributing growth to only those villages within an area around transport nodes. • Yes – no First Conversation option envisaged closing highways to vehicular traffic.

243

Reasonable? N/A Further consideration may be given to this concept in parallel to the strategic options testing, to inform later stages of the plan process.

Concept D06: Edge Intensification Source • Plan/Project: Plan/Project: 5th Studio CamMKOx typologies

• Specific document: 5th Studio CamMKOx typologies: Edge Intensification

244

Description (from source) • Intensification of existing suburbs • Urban extensions to new settlements Purpose/effects (from source) • Intensification of existing suburbs may require land assembly and therefore affect timely deliverability to housing sites. • Urban extensions in new settlements may lack the capacity to expand essential social infrastructure such as schools and GP surgeries. • Develop dispersed across a number of settlements may not provide satisfactory improvements to infrastructure • Intensification of existing small sites is unlikely to generate infrastructure needs alone, so are unlikely to significantly contribute to improvements to infrastructure • The character of a smaller settlements might be adversely affected by new development • Expanding some smaller settlements can support local shops, pubs and bus services • Smaller sites may improve deliverability rates due to competing developers • Dispersal is unlikely to meet the employment land needs of the county - larger businesses often need large sites and there are advantages to clustering Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – there are lower density suburbs of Cambridge which could in theory be intensified. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Intensification of Cambridge suburbs where social housing can no longer achieve environmental ratings A, B or C. Substantively different to existing options? • No – focus on Densification of existing urban areas and development on the Edge of Cambridge is addressed through First Conversation options. Reasonable? N/A Further consideration may be given to this concept in parallel to the strategic options testing, to inform later stages of the plan process.

245

Concept D11: String City Source • Plan/Project: 5th Studio CamMKOx typologies • Specific document: 5th Studio CamMKOx typologies: String City Description (from source) • This typology assumes aggregated smaller settlements can create a place of sufficient scale to be thought of as a city, rather than connecting to, and remaining subservient to, an existing larger-scale “central place”. • The component parts of this typology might vary in scale and in character and might include existing places as well as new ones. Their totality would be defined by the high degree of connectivity between them. This would most likely be achieved through a new, and in the case of existing towns or villages retro-fitted, high quality public transport network. • Existing and new places would be linked together by a public transport loop, and via a network of high quality walking and cycling routes. • Existing new places located around a protected and accessible green heart, aggregating each place’s open space requirement • one of the settlements should develop higher order functions to serve the new city’s population as well as a wider catchment

Larger-scale/longer term idea Purpose/effects (from source) Benefits • The new agglomeration of smaller settlements would have a large degree of self- containment, its own higher order services and a greater degree of national connectivity. • the entire population would be within a short walk of the “Green Heart”. • opportunities for new sport, leisure and productive landscapes adjoining the new neighbourhoods • could help preserves sensitive landscapes Challenges • different settlements within the area would each need a distinctive and complementary economic role • need to be very well interconnected by public transport if they are to function as a ring city rather than as an unrelated cluster of expanded towns and villages Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly: • Yes – development would be focused on several linked settlements and could involve new and/or existing/ expanded settlements. There are many settlements varying in size from small villages to larger settlements across Greater Cambridge, where development could be spread. The development would have less dependence on Cambridge.

246

• No – the String City concept - that aggregated smaller settlements can create a place of sufficient scale to be thought of as a city, rather than connecting to, and remaining subservient to, an existing larger-scale “central place” – would seem unrealistic in the context of development within the Greater Cambridge sub-region, in that any new agglomeration of development would be likely to be subservient to Cambridge for the foreseeable future. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 15: B1 - Example growth option diagram

247

Figure 16: B1 - Likely distribution of growth in Greater Cambridge context

Description • Plan period: Growth clustered across a small number of existing and first phases of new developments in South Cambridgeshire. • Built out: Growth clustered across a small number of existing and new towns in South Cambridgeshire Substantively different to existing options? Plan period - Partly: • No – This option was not a specific option in the First Conversation options but a combination of Dispersal: new settlements, Dispersal: villages, and Public Transport Corridors. • Yes – Development is spread across a number of existing and new developments, the aggregate of which is sufficient to provide substantial infrastructure including improved transport links between these settlements, reducing their reliance on existing established centres such as Cambridge. Built out – yes • Growing a number of settlements to the cumulative scale of a city was not was not addressed through First Conversation options. Reasonable? N/A Further consideration may be given to this concept in parallel to the strategic options testing, to inform later stages of the plan process.

248

Option D13: Minimum growth Source • Plan/Project: Cambridge Futures 2000 • Specific document: Cambridge Futures 2000 summary Description (from source) Minimum Growth would preserve the City of Cambridge and surrounding South Cambridgeshire with the minimum change. All new dwellings and business floorspace would be allocated to East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. Purpose/effects (from source) • Substantial increase in the cost of living and production in the City means Cambridge would cease to develop as a world-class centre of high-tech development. • Considerable increase in congestion on the access roads would continue to erode the quality of life in the city. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – Given the already planned and implemented growth in Greater Cambridge, this option highlights the consequences of only providing a minimum quantum of growth. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Description Very limited growth within Greater Cambridge; growth focused beyond Greater Cambridge. Substantively different to existing options? • Yes – Absolute minimum growth was not explored as a First Conversation option.

249

(E) Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Partly: • No – a strategy that focused growth beyond the boundaries of Greater Cambridge would be incompatible with NPPF para. 35 requiring plans to be Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs. • Yes – a strategy that focused growth within Greater Cambridge but was based on agreement with neighbouring authorities about their taking unmet needs beyond the boundaries of Greater Cambridge could be compatible with national policy. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown – assume Yes. o It is assumed that there is some capacity for growth beyond Greater Cambridge, although this is not known for certain. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume Yes. o The locations of and typologies for growth passed to neighbouring districts cannot be assumed, as this would be a matter for each relevant Local Planning Authority. As such, it is not possible to assess whether this option would be limited by environmental constraints. However, given the land area included in neighbouring districts, it seems reasonable to assume that there is land available for some growth which is not limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown o The locations of and typologies for growth passed to neighbouring districts cannot be assumed, as this would be a matter for each relevant Local Planning Authority. As such, it is not possible to assess even at a high level whether this option would be viable. • Deliverability: Unknown, assume challenging o As noted above, it is uncertain how likely it is that sufficient jobs would move into the market towns beyond Greater Cambridge to make dispersal work on a large scale: . It would be high risk to attempt to build many houses in the hope that jobs would follow. . If jobs did not arise on a dispersed strategy, commuting problems into cities will intensify, and a growing sense that the towns are merely ‘dormitories’ will develop. o Agreeing passing on growth to neighbouring districts could be a challenging political and legal process, including but not limited to the following issues:

250

. Any dispersal of growth beyond Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire would need agreement under the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring bodies. . Without a sub-regional strategic statutory plan, the appropriateness of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan might be reliant on other plan processes that are not aligned in timetable. . Without a sub-regional strategic statutory plan, it is challenging to see how Sustainability Appraisal for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan could appropriately test options extending beyond the Greater Cambridge geography

251

Concept D18: High Capacity Telecommunications Source • Plan/Project: Staff idea, drawing on Cambridge Futures

• Specific document: N/A Description (officer judgement) • Typology based upon implementation of high capacity telecommunication infrastructure in Greater Cambridge, connected via a multimedia super corridor with other high-growth areas including: o Cambridge/Milton Keynes/Oxford Arc, o Cambridge-Norwich Tech Corridor; and o London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor • Full-fibre optics (to door) and 5G telecommunication network, providing instant business and personal communication for work, education, retail and other services. • Connectivity (ultra/hyper speed as in 100 Mb - 1Gb) will be a key driver in housing market and almost all business sectors - notably also in advanced manufacturing which may accelerate in the late 2020s and early 2030s. Purpose/effects (officer judgement) Pros • Reduced need for people who work in the Greater Cambridge area to physically live in the Greater Cambridge area • Reduction in demand for commuting, with associated reduction in carbon emissions. • Reduced need for employment floorspace and residential dwellings. • Supports knowledge-based industries already located in Greater Cambridge and beyond. Cons • Many industries still require people to be physically located in the Greater Cambridge area. University education, tourism, retail and leisure • Delivery of high-capacity electronic/digital telecommunications infrastructure including 5G and ultra/hyper speed fibre-optics will be rolled out over a period of time and will not cover all dwellings unless specifically provided in both new and existing dwellings. • Benefits of this infrastructure can only be achieved if available within and beyond Greater Cambridge. • For long-term working from home, many employees will need to live in larger dwellings to provide a dedicated office area away to separate work from home life. • Long-term working from home will alter the way people socialise and interact outside their work life and this will require changes to our town centres. Socialising at work, for many is an important part of their social interaction.

252

• Long-term working from home can impede the development of ideas that would otherwise be generated from the co-location of different scientific knowledge-based industries. • Need to consider the social impact this new way of working will affect people and how this cannot exacerbate feelings of isolation or loss of community well-being. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – relevant to any area. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Description Housing and employment growth requirements reduced related to greater home working. Physical distribution of growth unclear. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • Yes - Focus on supporting significantly increased working from home across Greater Cambridge was not included in First Conversation options. • No - Physical distribution of growth unclear. Reasonable? N/A

253

Concept D20: Copenhagen Finger Plan Source • Plan/Project: Centre for Public Impact

• Specific document: Land use and transport in Denmark Description (from source) • Direct urban housing and business developments alongside train lines and roads, separated by green areas for recreation. These urbanised areas form the fingers, while the city centre could be the palm of the hand. Purpose/effects (from source) • Prevent urban sprawl, while also avoiding overcrowded cityscapes • The station proximity principle allows for new housing, businesses, and public services to be erected only close to train stations • The green wedge principle works to preserve the green spaces between these urban settlements. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – There are a number of recently improved railway stations that may allow for some housing growth, located in small villages. A new railway station proposed for Cambourne as part of the East/West rail link could provide a significant opportunity. • No – The existing railway stations within Cambridge do not allow for further expansion in the way described above.

254

Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 17: B1 - Example growth option diagram

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Copenhagen-Five-Finger-Plan-left-and2007- version-Fingers-Plan-right-Consummated_fig2_294139457 Description Growth focused along public transport corridors extending from Cambridge, providing continuous broad corridors of development separated by green wedges. Substantively different to existing options? • No – This is a logical ultimate extension of the Public transport corridors option. Reasonable? N/A

255

Concept D21: Net Zero Growth Source • Plan/Project: Staff idea, drawing on materials and discussion at Town & Country Planning Association Spring Conference 2020 – Climate Change – game over?

• Specific document: Town & Country Planning Association Spring Conference 2020 – Climate Change – game over - materials Description (officer judgement) • Locate growth only in environmentally sustainable locations. Ignore any conflicting policy designations such as Green Belt or heritage. • Draws on the climate emergency declared at national and local levels, and the related point that the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended in 2019 has greater weight than national planning policy. Purpose/effects (officer judgement) • Mitigates climate change, supporting zero carbon ambitions, including by limiting the need to travel, and promoting walking, cycling and public transport use. • New development is located in areas at least risk of flooding, and if in areas of flood risk, it is safe for its lifetime. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – there is undeveloped land within Greater Cambridge in highly sustainable locations avoiding areas of flooding. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Description Growth located in Cambridge urban area, new settlements, and along transport corridors. No small sites. Substantively different to existing options? • No – This option is a combination of several specific options in the First Conversation including Densification of existing urban areas; Edge of Cambridge – on and outside the Green Belt and Public transport corridors. Reasonable? N/A

256

Concept D22: Spatial Urbanism approach Source • Plan/Project: Internal staff idea

• Specific document: N/A Description (from source) • Centres and nodes first - focussing new development at existing centres/interchanges and prioritising land and optimising density within 400m and 800m walking distances. Areas and settlements with railway stations land within 1000m/5minute cycle ride should be prioritised for development. Guided bus stops are a form of interchange and could also form part of this. • Compact growth/intensification in rural locations that fall within a theoretical 5 mile/30-minute cycle ride of Cambridge, especially settlements with railway stations and Rapid Transit stops such as Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Apply the above compact criteria of optimising land within 400m/800m of centres (this could provide the theoretical settlement boundary, refined through other constraints such as ecology). Interestingly applying a 30 minute ‘golden’ cycling distance this includes the settlements of: 257

• Intensification/edge expansion of settlements served by East-West Rail, releasing and prioritising land within 1000m/5minute cycle ride of new railway station. • Any potential new compact settlement located on East-West Rail/existing trainline – compact form, with shape more-or-less concentric, new settlement extent and radius from centre dictated by 5-10minute cycle ride Purpose/effects (from source) • reinforce walkable neighbourhoods/active travel modes • building at sufficient densities to create/sustain demand for services and amenities Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – There are a number of recently improved railway stations that may allow for some housing growth, located in small villages. A new railway station proposed for Cambourne as part of the East/West rail link could provide a significant opportunity. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Diagrams Figure 18: B1 - Example growth option diagram

Figure 19: B1 - Likely distribution of growth in Greater Cambridge context

Description

o Growth focused at locations at/close to existing centres and transport interchanges, including at the larger settlements and villages with train stations. o Compact growth/intensification in rural locations that fall within a theoretical 5 mile/30-minute cycle ride of Cambridge

258

Substantively different to existing options? • No – This option is a combination of several options in the First Conversation including Densification of existing urban areas; Dispersal - new settlements and villages, and Public transport corridors. Reasonable? N/A

Principle D24: Nature first Source • Plan/Project: Nature first • Specific document: Officer idea Description (from source) Shape a spatial strategy based upon first considering the best opportunities for habitats and wildlife. Purpose/effects (from source) • Enhance existing and support provision of new habitats • Mitigate and adapt to climate change • Mitigate flood risk Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – Both councils have declared a biodiversity emergency and this nature- first approach would be a method for embedding biodiversity principles into the Local Plan. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Unclear. This idea requires further exploration to understand its impact on the potential distribution of development. Substantively different to existing options? • Yes – as it reframes development as something that should focus on nature first. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Partly • Yes – supports NPPF para. 8 an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown o Further consideration required to understand implications for growth locations and capacity. • Environmental constraints: Yes o This option enhances nature and embeds environmental improvement as the central principle of the Local Plan.

259

Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown o Once a nature first strategy had been defined, consideration would need to be given to the availability and viability for development that aligned with such a strategy. • Deliverability: Unknown o Once a nature first strategy had been defined, consideration would need to be given to the availability of land for development that aligned with such a strategy, and beyond that its deliverability. o Beyond setting a development strategy informed by a nature first approach, funding would be needed to deliver the habitat improvements assumed to be incorporated into this strategy.

See Annex E. Further consideration of reasonable additional options for further consideration of this option.

260

Ideas proposed in responses to First Conversation consultation Principle E02: Housing in close proximity to employment/innovation centres Source • First Conversation consultation response Q42 Description (from source) Provide residential development in locations to support the growth of the employment sector. The location of employment areas such as the Innovation Corridor are generally in rural areas. As such there is a limited number of dwellings which could serve employees of such institutes. Purpose/effects (from source) Skilled workers will continue to be attracted to key employment locations institutions. Support the reduction of journeys to and from employment sites by motor vehicle, given the opportunities to cycle or walk. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly: • Yes – relevant in any spatial context. • No – traditional notion of employment centres may be changing complexion. Especially true of knowledge economy work that Greater Cambridge seeks to attract, where flexible working practices are becoming more widespread and this has been accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Development distribution that integrates housing and employment uses could include: • North East Cambridge, where major employment sites such as the Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge business park are isolated from housing and thereby generate significant external trips. • Focus growth to the south of Cambridge close to research parks within the biotech cluster. • Growth focused in areas close to existing infrastructure and services, such as within Cambridge • New housing growth focused in sufficient concentrations so as to generate demand for economic uses and community facilities and services, such as at new settlements. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • Yes – Focusing growth to the south of Cambridge close to research parks within the biotech cluster is not addressed in First Conversation options • No – Locating growth at North East Cambridge, close to existing infrastructure and services, and in sufficient concentrations so as to generate demand for economic uses and community facilities and services, is addressed through First Conversation options. Reasonable? Considering only an option focusing growth to the south of Cambridge.

261

Reasonable: National policy? Yes: • Integration of housing and jobs is supported by NPPF para. 92. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o The area, south of Cambridge is relatively undeveloped with several small settlements located parallel with the M11 - it is assumed that there is some capacity for growth. • Environmental constraints: Yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. o The area is predominantly rural/agricultural and therefore significant development would have an impact on the area’s character and environmental qualities. It can however be assumed that some areas will not be limited by absolute environmental constraints. o However, the River Granta flows through this area and feeds into the River Cam. Any significant development in the area affecting its flow e.g., with increased run-off or flow rates would potentially have an impact on the River Cam and Cambridge. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes. o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing or expanding new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Deliverability will depend on locations and typologies of development: . Delivery assumed to be supported by being close to strategic public transport infrastructure . Delivery rates are assumed to be affected by locating a number of developments close to one another. . New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation of how much of a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan. . Developer contributions on individual smaller sites do not generate substantive contributions to support major transport and other infrastructure provision. As such, an option that

262

focused growth towards smaller sites might result in cumulative impacts on the transport network, for which it might be hard to collect sufficient funds to mitigate. Over time this could lead to an infrastructure deficit that might make such a strategy undeliverable in the long term.

Principle E03: Tied cottages /key worker housing Source • First Conversation consultation response Q42 Description (from source) Employers provide housing in close proximity to place of employment to reduce the need to travel. Purpose/effects (from source) • Tied cottages /key worker housing Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Partly: • Yes – relevant in any spatial context • No – the Local Authority can only control social/affordable housing tethering Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Housing for local workers is something desirable, but the spatial distribution of this is difficult to discern. Key worker employment sites would need to be defined and identified. If housing development is occurring in places that is not close to the identified key worker employment sites, then the affordable key worker housing would need to be provided off site and this could undermine other ambitions for balanced communities to be delivered with a range of tenures at new sites.

263

Substantively different to existing options? • Yes – this is an approach that seeks to locate housing near key worker employment sites. Reasonable? Partly No • No – a strategy based only on key worker housing may fail to meet Greater Cambridge’s minimum growth requirement and therefore would be incompatible with NPPF para. 35 requiring plans to be Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs. Yes • Housing developments should consider the needs for local workers to help fulfil the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes. o Capacity to absorb only tethered housing cottages at existing key worker employment sites may need to be delivered at higher densities. o Lack of comprehensive planning may affect the area’s ability to grow over the long-term in a sustainable form. • Environmental constraints: Yes. o It is assumed that tethered housing cottages would have some absolute environmental constraints and would need to be delivered at higher densities to reduce environmental impact. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: unsure. o Capacity to support tethered housing in social/affordable housing schemes is possible, but a strategy based solely on this is unlikely to be viable. • Deliverability: unsure o This is not a spatial option per se, but should be considered in draft housing policy.

264

Option E05: The Gruene Finger Source • gruenefinger • First Conversation consultation response Q42 Description (from source) The towns grow out into the countryside from existing settlements but always with green space secured alongside and decent cycle paths, so you can cycle across town over grass and through trees; a good example is Osnabrück. Purpose/effects (from source) The green fingers: • Help manage the urban climate • serve as water retention areas • provide carbon sinks • provide • local recreation areas • support biodiversity Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? Cambridge includes a population spread between Cambridge and a series of towns surrounded by countryside in Greater Cambridge context. This could be a way to explore growth while increasing access to green space introducing active travel corridors and pushing gentle density that can respond to the councils’ climate emergency ambitions. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Growth focused on ‘gruene fingers’ at Cambridge’s urban extensions will be on along axes or corridors that extend into green belt and countryside Substantively different to existing options? • No – Edge of Cambridge option addresses the idea of urban extensions. • No – Focus on corridors into Cambridge is addressed through all the Public Transport Corridors First Conversation option. Reasonable? N/A

265

Option E08: A428 Corridor Source • First Conversation consultation response Q42 Description (from source) The A428 corridor running due west of Cambridge to Cambourne and St Neots presents a broad transport corridor that is due to receive substantial investment in relation to East West Rail (including new station at Cambourne) and the Cambridge Automated Metro. Both of these transport interventions will provide a good choice of sustainable transport modes within this growth corridor and are due to be constructed before 2030. Purpose/effects (from source) Provides a good choice of sustainable transport modes.

266

Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes - development would be centred on several linked settlements and could take advantage of new public transport provision. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Growth focused along the A428 corridor in Greater Cambridge. Substantively different to existing options? • No – the A428 is a corridor on which public transport improvements are planned. This option will be addressed through Public Transport Corridor option. • Yes – Notwithstanding the above, First Conversation options do not focus all growth in a geographically specific (rather than typology-specific) location. Reasonable? National policy Yes – compatible with NPPF para. 102 on realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure. Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Yes o There is undeveloped land along existing or proposed transport corridors within Greater Cambridge which in theory has capacity for additional new settlements. There is also undeveloped land around villages along the proposed CAM transport corridor to the west of Cambridge which in theory has capacity for development. • Environmental constraints: Unknown – assume yes. o It is assumed that some growth is permissible but still limited by absolute environmental constraints. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown – assume yes o Following allocation in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, proposed new settlements at Waterbeach and Bourn are progressing through the application process, implying that developing new settlements in South Cambridgeshire is currently viable. o As evidenced by Annual Monitoring Reports, over many years, smaller developments in South Cambridgeshire villages have continued to progress through the planning system, proving their ongoing viability. o Locating growth close to public transport nodes should reduce additional transport infrastructure investment required to support development, and thereby increase viability. • Deliverability: Unknown – assume mixed o Locating growth close to public transport nodes should reduce additional transport infrastructure investment required to support development, and thereby increase deliverability. o East West Rail and CAM proposed transport infrastructure projects are yet to have funding or development consent confirmed. As such,

267

confirmation whether such projects could be completed in time to support associated development within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate growth on these routes in the new Local Plan. o New settlements usually have a long lead in time from planning permission to the start of construction. As such, confirmation whether a new settlement could be developed within the next 20 years will be important as part of considering whether to allocate it in the new Local Plan.

Principle E16: Brownfield sites first Source • First Conversation consultation response Q42 Description (from source) Development should, where possible, be directed to existing brownfield sites; in particular, within urban areas. Purpose/effects (officer judgement) Protection of the countryside, reduction in landscape impact. Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – There are several brownfield sites that are potential sites for densification, including land within Cambridge urban area and in particular North East Cambridge and Cambridge Airport safeguarded land. • No– Retaining industrial uses close to strategic transport links is also important for Cambridge, so needs to be balanced with improving spatial efficiencies of current industrial workspaces, providing strategies for innovative colocation of industrial and other uses, and relocation of industrial to suitable places. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Development centred within Cambridge urban area. Substantively different to existing options? • No – this option is already covered by Densification and Edge of Cambridge, First Conversation options Reasonable? N/A

268

Principle E21: Nature recovery network Source • First Conversation consultation response Q42 Description (from source) The plan should map a ‘nature recovery network’ as a framework to guide essential development. Water and water sources are a vital part of this connectivity, as are drains, streams, rivers, lakes and ponds. A ‘nature recovery network’ must include these aquatic elements at the same time as identifying new large-scale areas for habitat creation, including new woodlands and areas of natural regeneration, and opportunities for linking them all together. The plan should recognise that ‘flooding’, which will be increasingly likely with climate change, can be mitigated upstream by slowing river drainage. This ‘natural’ approach would require a reversion to an earlier pattern of agricultural land-use management with wet meadows and less arable land in the flood plain itself. Purpose/effects (from source) • Enhance existing and support provision of new habitats • Mitigate and adapt to climate change • Mitigate flood risk Relevant in a Greater Cambridge context? • Yes – Both councils have declared a biodiversity emergency and this nature- first approach would be a method for embedding sustainability and rewilding principles into the local plan. • No – This does not set out how Cambridge can deliver new homes and jobs within this approach. Potential distribution of growth in a Greater Cambridge context Unclear. This idea requires further exploration to understand its impact on the potential distribution of development. Substantively different to existing options? Partly: • Yes – as it reframes development as something that should focus on nature first. • No – unclear what distribution of growth this principle would generate. Reasonable? Reasonable: National policy? Partly • Yes – supports NPPF para. 8 an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy. • No – this approach on its own would not address NPPF para. 35 requiring plans to be Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs.

269

Reasonable: absolute constraints? • Capacity: Unknown o Further consideration required to understand implications for growth locations and capacity. • Environmental constraints: Yes o This option enhances nature and embeds environmental improvement as the central principle of the Local Plan. Reasonable: viable and deliverable? • Viability: Unknown o Once a nature first strategy had been defined, consideration would need to be given to the availability and viability for development that aligned with such a strategy. • Deliverability: Unknown o Once a nature first strategy had been defined, consideration would need to be given to the availability of land for development that aligned with such a strategy, and beyond that its deliverability. o Beyond setting a development strategy informed by a nature first approach, funding would be needed to deliver the habitat improvements assumed to be incorporated into this strategy.

See Annex E. Further consideration of reasonable additional options for further consideration of this option.

270

Annex D. Cross-check: review of the uniqueness of the reasonable additional options Option Likely distribution of growth Unique? Principle B04: Focus growth to the south of No – overlap with Integrate uses Cambridge close to research options C03, C13, including housing and parks within the biotech cluster. E03 employment Option C03: Focus growth to the south of No – overlap with Supporting an existing Cambridge close to research options B04, C13, high-tech corridor parks within the biotech cluster. E03 C13: All development Focus growth to the south of No – merge with located in the high- Cambridge close to research options B04, C03, tech growth area (All in parks within the biotech cluster. E03 Science Vale) Principle E03: Housing Focus growth to the south of No - overlap with in close proximity to Cambridge close to research options B04, C03, employment/innovation parks within the biotech cluster. C13 centres Principle B05: Focus growth on the corridor to No – overlap with Explicitly rely on the west of Cambridge, which will C08 and E08 existing or proposed be provided for by the transport infrastructure Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro and East West Rail proposals Option C08: Expanded Focus further growth on the A428 No – overlap with growth area corridor to the west of Cambridge, B05 and E08. which includes Cambourne and its expansion at Cambourne West, as well as allocated development at Bourn Airfield. Option E08: A428 Growth focused along the A428 Unclear – overlap Corridor corridor in Greater Cambridge. with B05 and C08. Principle D24: Nature Unclear. This idea requires further Overlap with E21; First exploration to understand its requires further impact on the potential distribution consideration to of development. understand development strategy implications. Principle E21: Nature Unclear. This idea requires further Overlap with D24; Recovery Network exploration to understand its requires further consideration to

271

impact on the potential distribution understand of development. development strategy implications.

272

Annex E. Further consideration of reasonable additional options This section considers further the reasonable additional options set out above at Annex D. Cross-check: review of the uniqueness of the reasonable additional options, in order to confirm which should be taken forward for testing as strategic spatial options. Integrating homes and jobs/supporting a high-tech area Relevant ideas Ideas considered include: • Principle B04: Integrate uses including housing and employment • Option C03: Supporting an existing high-tech corridor • C13: All development located in the high-tech growth area (All in Science Vale)

Considerations Rough analysis12 of existing and future homes and jobs data provides the following insights relevant to considering options that seek to integrate the distribution of homes and jobs: Existing distribution of homes and jobs: • Urban/rural split: 45% of Greater Cambridge’s homes are within the urban area of Cambridge, with 55% being within the rural area of South Cambridgeshire. In comparison, 56% of Greater Cambridge’s jobs are within the urban area of Cambridge, with 44% being within the rural area of South Cambridgeshire. • Within the urban area, the greatest proportion of jobs and homes (34% of each) are located within a roughly defined central area. In edge of Cambridge areas, there is a roughly even spread of homes around the compass, but with a low proportion to the south and west. In comparison, in edge of Cambridge areas jobs are distributed roughly evenly apart from in the south, which includes 19% of jobs in the urban area. • Within the rural area, the most significant proportion of homes (28%) is in the north west, including for example the large villages of Histon and Impington and Cottenham. Beyond that there is a roughly even spread of homes around the compass apart from in the east, where there are significantly fewer homes (9%). In comparison, the greatest proportion of jobs (24%) is in the south, with the next highest proportion being in the north west (21%). • Combining the urban and rural areas, the highest proportion of homes is to the north west (21%); the south west has the second highest proportion (17%); there is a roughly even spread of homes around other points of the

12 Defining urban wards as either central or if on the edge of the urban area as one of north, east, south, south west, west and north west, and dividing rural wards in the same way. 273

compass. In comparison, the south has the highest proportion of jobs (21%), with the next highest proportion being within the central urban area of Cambridge. Future distribution of homes and jobs: • Urban/rural split: In 2036, 42% of Greater Cambridge’s homes are within the urban area of Cambridge, with 58% being within the rural area of South Cambridgeshire. In comparison, 49% of Greater Cambridge’s committed floorspace is within the urban area of Cambridge, with 51% being within the rural area of South Cambridgeshire. • Within the urban area, the greatest proportion of jobs and homes (34% of each) are located within a roughly defined central area. In edge of Cambridge areas, there is a roughly even spread of homes around the compass, but with a low proportion to the south and west. In comparison, in edge of Cambridge areas jobs are distributed roughly evenly apart from in the south, which includes 19% of jobs in the urban area. • Within the rural area, the most significant proportion of homes (28%) is in the north west, including for example the large villages of Histon and Impington and Cottenham. Beyond that there is a roughly even spread of homes around the compass apart from in the east, where there are significantly fewer homes. In comparison, the greatest proportion of committed floorspace (24%) is in the south, with the next highest proportion being in the north west. • Combining the urban and rural areas, in 2036, the highest proportion of homes is in the north western parts of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire (24%), with more or less equal spread of homes around the other points of the compass. In comparison, the greatest proportion of committed floorspace is in the south (37%), with the next highest proportion in the north west (31%).

Conclusions The southern part of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire has the highest proportion of existing jobs and committed employment floorspace but does not have a comparable proportion of existing and committed homes. This provides justification for an option which seeks to integrate homes and jobs within this area. Growth around transport interchanges Relevant ideas Ideas considered include: • Principle B05: Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport infrastructure • Option C08: Expanded growth area • Option E08: A428 Corridor

274

Considerations These ideas converge around focusing development within a specific broad area of a district focused around transport infrastructure provision, providing the following benefits: • Connected to existing and proposed strategic transport infrastructure to encourage sustainable travel within the expanded growth area • Contributing to the social sustainability of the broad area by further adding to the critical mass of population to support existing and planned services and facilities • contributing to the achievement of economic growth through concentrating economic development

Conclusions It is considered that there is merit in testing a strategic option specifically focusing as much growth as possible in the area of Cambourne and the A428 proposed public transport corridor, given proposed strategic transport infrastructure, and to add to the economic and social sustainability of that area. Nature First / Nature Recovery Network Relevant ideas Ideas considered include: • Principle D24: Nature First • Principle E21: Nature Recovery Network

Considerations Available evidence to inform a nature first/nature recovery network option includes environmental constraints and opportunities, drawing on environmental data and recent or proposed green infrastructure projects. These are explored below.

Environmental constraints Information considered • Local Authority environmental constraints data • Initial mapping developed for Greater Cambridge Local Plan Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping (similar to above but more wide ranging).

Findings

Environmental constraints data is in general fine grained, such that it would not be possible to derive a broad strategic spatial option from it. One possible approach would be to protect all areas of peatland, albeit again this would not present sufficient guidance to generate a reasonable spatial option for the whole of Greater Cambridge.

275

Environmental opportunities Information considered

Data

• Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Habitat Opportunity Mapping 2018 • OxCam Local Natural Capital Plan:

Projects

• Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy 2011 • Natural Cambridgeshire Opportunity Areas identified as part of the OxCam Arc work • Fens Biosphere project • Cambridge Great Park proposal • Cambridge Past Present & Future/Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Nature Recovery Network proposal Findings

Data

Data identifying environmental opportunities is fine grained with no clear pattern from which to derive a broad strategic spatial option.

Projects

There are a number of environmental projects/areas which are common to a number of the sources considered, including, for example, Wicken Fen Vision, West Cambridgeshire Hundreds, and the Gog Magogs. In theory one approach to defining a nature first option would be to develop only outside of all such commonly supported environmental project areas. However, taking this approach leaves significant areas of Greater Cambridge remaining within which to potentially distribute development, with no clear principles for how to do so.

Conclusions In principle, it is challenging to determine a spatial option for where to locate development (that will serve people), based solely on the principle of considering the requirements of wildlife and habitats (and not people).

In practice, drawing on available information, it is difficult to identify a clear method to determine a specific Nature First/Nature Recovery Network strategic spatial option that goes beyond a constraints approach (i.e. avoiding locating development in

276

priority environmental areas), even when considering environmental opportunity projects. Without separately identifying principles for where to actively locate development (such as proximity to public transport which is already addressed through First Conversation options) it is therefore challenging to derive a reasonable spatial option.

Drawing on the above, it is considered that it is most appropriate to integrate consideration of environmental data and projects - including the later stages of the Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping referred to above, which will identify broad priority areas for green infrastructure – into the consideration of the benefits and disadvantages of all the strategic spatial options, rather than to attempt to create a standalone Nature First/Nature Recovery Network strategic spatial option.

277

Annex F. List of reasonable options for testing First Conversation options First Conversation options as set out at Annex A. Assessment of First Conversation options: • Densification of existing urban areas • Edge of Cambridge – non-Green Belt • Edge of Cambridge – Green Belt • Dispersal - new settlements • Dispersal – villages • Public transport corridors Description and benefits of additional options Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs

Sources • Principle B4: Integrate uses including housing and employment • Option C3: Supporting an existing high-tech corridor

Description This approach would focus new homes close to existing and committed jobs within the life sciences cluster area around the south of Cambridge, including homes at existing villages and at new settlements.

Purpose/benefits • Supports the continued success of the life sciences cluster area around the south of Cambridge • Sites growth near to existing centres of employment, potentially reducing the need to travel by car and so making a positive contribution to addressing climate change. • Could support housing availability within the area south of Cambridge, an issue highlighted by employers within the area.

Expanding a growth area around transport nodes Sources • Principle B05: Explicitly rely on existing or proposed transport infrastructure • Option C08: Expanded growth area • Option E08: A428 Corridor Description This approach would focus new homes and jobs close to existing recent and committed development at Cambourne, close to the proposed East West Rail station, and at transport nodes along the proposed Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro route between Cambourne and Cambridge.

278

Purpose/benefits • Locates growth near to planned rail and metro public transport provision, potentially reducing the need to travel by car and so making a positive contribution to addressing climate change. • Locates growth close to existing large-scale growth commitments, adding to the critical mass of population that could generate demand for further services and employment provision.

279

Annex G. List of sources considered Sources of spatial ideas are listed below in the order they are considered within the report:

Cambridge Local Plan 2018 / South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/local-plan-2018 https://www.scambs.gov.uk/planning/local-plan-and-neighbourhood-planning/the- adopted-development-plan/south-cambridgeshire-local-plan-2018/

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Economic Review - Final Report https://www.cpier.org.uk/media/1672/cpier-report-151118-lowres.pdf

National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf

Greater Norwich Joint Local Plan: Growth Options Document https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahU KEwjOpt7IraboAhXRQ0EAHXFjBjMQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.g reaternorwichgrowth.org.uk%2Fdmsdocument%2F2531&usg=AOvVaw0IucH9hfA06 4Jnhlr89qJN

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2032: Development Strategy & Site Selection Methodology Paper https://edrms.bedford.gov.uk/OpenDocument.aspx?id=VfHF1lpjPD6pGncQgTE5xQ %3d%3d&name=Development%20Strategy%20and%20Site%20Selection%20Meth odology%20background%20paper.pdf

South Oxfordshire Plan: South Oxfordshire District Council, UNDATED. Draft Topic Paper – Local Plan Spatial Strategy http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Draft%20Spatial%20Strategy%20Top ic%20Paper%20(002).pdf

Introducing the Oxfordshire Plan 2050, Potential Spatial Scenarios https://oxfordshireplan.inconsult.uk/consult.ti/Oxfordshire_Plan_Intro/consultationHo me

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan: Scope, Issues and Options Document / New Directions for Growth https://www.hinckley- bosworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/6361/new_directions_for_growth_pdf

Urbed, 2014. Uxcester Garden City Wolfson Economics Prize submission

280

http://urbed.coop/sites/default/files/20140815%20URBED%20Wolfson%20Stage%2 02_low%20res3.pdf

The Cambridge to Oxford Connection: Ideas Competition, Mae: Urcadia https://competitions.malcolmreading.com/cambridgeoxfordconnection/shortlist

The Cambridge to Oxford Connection: Ideas Competition, VeloCity https://competitions.malcolmreading.com/cambridgeoxfordconnection/shortlist/tibbal ds

5th Studio for NIC, 2017. Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford Future Planning Options Project https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/171122-NIC-Final-Report-5th-Studio- optimised.pdf

Cambridge Futures, 2000: Cambridge Futures 1: Options, likely consequences and key issues https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cambridge-Futures-1-Options-liekly- consequences-and-key-issues_fig1_331132410

Case Study: Land Use and Transport in Denmark https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/land-use-and-transport-denmark/

Gruenefinger https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://gruenefinger.de/projekt/&prev=search&pto=aue

Cambridge Past Present & Future/Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Nature Recovery Network proposal https://www.cambridgeppf.org/blog/a-nature-recovery-network-for-cambridge

281

Appendix 3: Strategic growth proposals included in neighbouring Local Plans

Completed June 2020

282

Local Plan LP housing LP jobs Growth Strategy (key Council LP status period figures figures growth sites) Other key points Huntingdonshire Adopted 2011-2036 20,100 14,400 Concentrate development in District Council locations which provide, or have the potential to provide, the greatest access to services and facilities. Encourage limited development for rural communities to support social and economic sustainability. Four spatial planning areas take 75% of development: - Huntingdon including Brampton and Godmanchester and the strategic expansion location of Alconbury Weald - St Neots including Little Paxton and the strategic expansion location of St Neots East - St Ives - Ramsey including Bury

283

Local Plan LP housing LP jobs Growth Strategy (key Council LP status period figures figures growth sites) Other key points East Adopted 2015-2031 11, 500 (found 9,200 - Focus growth in market Plan found sound subject Cambridgeshire to be out of towns of market towns of Ely, to modifications in 2018 District Council date in April Soham and Littleport but withdrawn by the 2020 review) - limited development will take Council in 2019 rather place in villages which have a than adopted as the defined development Council did not agree with envelope the modifications put forward by the Inspector to make the plan sound. A second review of the local plan took place in April 2020 which found the 2015 plan needs to be partially revised in respect of its strategic housing policies Central Examination Core Core Strategy: Core The core strategy directs Plan at examination - most Bedfordshire Strategy: 17,950 Strategy:17,000 growth to: recent additional info Council 2001-2026 Emerging Emerging plan: 60% in Major Service Centres submitted by officer in May Emerging plan: 39,500 24,000 30% in Minor Service Centres 2020 plan: 2015- 10% in Large and Small 2035 Villages The emerging plan proposes: - a new village east of Biggleswade, - up to 4 new villages in Marston Moretaine, -extension north of Luton and -extension east of Arlesey,

*some growth in existing settlements where supported by services.

284

Braintree Examination Core Core Core Core Strategy: Draft plan published in District Council Strategy: Strategy:3,372 Strategy:14,000 Land to the north-west of 2017 2011-2026 Emerging Emerging plan: Braintree - off Panfield Lane Hearing took place at Emerging plan: 14,320 490 per annum - 600 dwellings and beginning of 2020 plan: 2013- associated community uses, Inspectors report on 2033 15ha of employment land and section 1 received, finding site for football club proposal for Garden Land to the south-west of Communities unsound. Witham - off Hatfield Road -600 dwellings and associated community uses Land to the north-east of Witham (in Rivenhall Parish) - off Forest Road -300 dwellings and associated community uses. There is also a proposal for a business and innovation park at land to the west of A131 at Great Notley which will contain 18.5ha of B1, B2, B8 and C1 uses.

Emerging plan: - extensions to Braintree town (4,000+) - A12 corridor (Hatfield Peverel, Kelvedon and Feering - 2,000) - 3 Garden communities on boundaries with Uttlesford and Colchester (each delivering 2,500 within plan period and between 7,000 and 24,000 each in total)

285

Local Plan LP housing LP jobs Growth Strategy (key Council LP status period figures figures growth sites) Other key points North Examination Emerging 14,000 (13,800 - North of Baldock for 2,800 Hearings on the emerging Hertfordshire Plan: 2011- in district and homes 92,500 to be delivered plan were scheduled in District Council 2031 200 in Luton by 2031) March had to be HMA also - North of Letchworth (900) postponed due to Covid. 1,950 further - North of Stevenage (900) houses in - East of Hichin (700) Luton HMA to NE of Great Ashby (600) contribute to - East of Luton (2,100) unmet need) Employment allocations at: - former power station Letchworth (1.5ha) - East Baldock (19.6ha) - West Royston (10.9ha) West Suffolk Preparing Forest Heath Forrest Heath: 18,000 shared Newmarket - 15,000sqm of The current West Suffolk Council for Reg 18 Core 6,400 across Mid retail/240 dwellings Local Plan (consists of the consultation Strategy: St Suffolk / St Brandon: 2ha of former Forest Heath area in Oct-Dec 2001-2026 Edmundsbury: Edmundsbury / employment/600sqm (FHDC) and former St 2020 (housing to min 9,000 Forest Heath retail/260 dwellings Edmundsbury area 2031) (15,631 (The East of - Mildenhall - 4.5ha (SEBC) Local Plan St between 2001- England Plan employment/1,500sqm documents Edmundsbury 2026) 2008) retail/260 dwellings A policy review was core strategy: - Lakenheath - 70 dwellings published in July 2020 2001-2021 - Red Lodge - extant consent which found a high level of for new village centre with compliance with national school and 1,659 dwellings policy. St Edmundsbury - Development to focus of Bury St Edmunds (52%) and Haverhill (34%) (using sequential approach and favouring brownfield sites)

286

Local Plan LP housing LP jobs Growth Strategy (key Council LP status period figures figures growth sites) Other key points Uttlesford Preparing Local Plan N/A N/A N/A Draft 2019 Local Plan was District Council new local from 2005 - withdrawn. plan - 2015. Draft timetable to 2019 Local be available Plan was in coming withdrawn - weeks about to begin preparing docs for reg 18

287

Appendix 4: Sustainable Settlement Sizes Review

288

South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council Greater Cambridge Local Plan

Sustainable Settlement Sizes Review

Final Report Prepared by LUC November 2020

289

South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council Greater Cambridge Local Plan

Sustainable Settlement Sizes Review

Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date

1. Draft for S. Smith S. Smith J. Owen 15/06/20 client J. Owen comment

2. Final S. Smith J. Owen J. Owen 23/10/20

3. Minor S. Smith J. Owen J. Owen 10/11/20 updates

Bristol Land Use Landscape Design Edinburgh Consultants Ltd Strategic Planning & Glasgow Registered in Assessment Lancaster England Development Planning London Registered number Urban Design & Manchester 2549296 Masterplanning Registered office: Environmental Impact landuse.co.uk 250 Waterloo Road Assessment London SE1 8RD Landscape Planning &

Assessment 100% recycled Landscape paper Management Ecology Historic Environment

GIS & Visualisation

290

Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction 291

Sustainability Appraisal 291

The brief 291

Method of approach 292

Structure of this document 293

Chapter 2 – Policy Review 294

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 294

Garden Communities Prospectus and Toolkit 295

Review of Inspectors' Reports 298

Chapter 3 – Defining a Sustainable Settlement 300 Environmental, social and economic considerations for settlement size and 300 the issue of self-containment

Components of a sustainable settlement 302

Access to existing settlements 306

Defining ‘good access’ 308

Identifying thresholds 313

Chapter 4 – Estimating Sustainable Settlement Sizes in Greater Cambridge 317

The Greater Cambridge context 317

Defining a sustainable settlement size in the Greater Cambridge context 319

Additional considerations 328

The test of deliverability 330

Chapter 5 – Conclusions 332

Appendix A – Thresholds for Provision of New Services and Facilities 333

Appendix B – Conditions for Achieving Successful New Places 340

291

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council have commissioned LUC to carry out a literature review to identify what size(s) of settlement is/are likely to be sustainable and could reasonably be planned for within a Greater Cambridge context. This information will inform consideration of options for the emerging Joint Local Plan, particularly with regards to new settlements and possibly other strategic spatial options, such as urban extensions.

Sustainability Appraisal

1.2 An integrated Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment is being undertaken for the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan (hereafter referred to as 'Sustainability Appraisal'). Sustainability Appraisal is required by law for the Local Plan, and its purpose is to identify and manage potential significant environmental, social and economic effects that may arise as a result of the Local Plan. 1.3 A key requirement of Sustainability Appraisal is to consider all reasonable alternatives as the plan evolves1,2. This document will help to inform identification of reasonable alternatives, particularly in assisting the Councils to determine what size of new settlement should be considered reasonable in a Greater Cambridge context.

The brief

1.4 The brief set out the key tasks for the research as follows:  Review of national planning policy relating to this topic.  Draw on experience of plan-making processes nationally and internationally.  Consider terms, including but not necessarily limited to: – Developing a working definition of what ‘sustainable’ means for a new settlement, and in a Greater Cambridge context.  Identify the key features of a settlement that make it sustainable. This could include but may not be limited to identifying thresholds in relation to making certain key infrastructure or service provision viable (recognising that some specific thresholds may be set at a local level).  Consider whether the location of a settlement may affect what size might be considered sustainable. 1.5 The brief noted that there may be a range of sizes of settlement that are considered sustainable, in various contexts and for various reasons. 1 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations, 2004 No. 1633 2 MHCLG (2019) Planning Practice Guidance: Strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal

292

Method of approach

1.6 The first task was to review relevant national policy. The starting point for this was the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as this sets the overarching framework for planning policy in England. Other relevant policies and programmes relating to sustainable development of housing and new communities were also reviewed. The purpose of the policy review was to identify key policy documents and related literature and the main points they make with regards to new settlements, including policy support. Where such documents make reference to settlement sizes, this is noted as a starting point, but then compared to and refined using other evidence and guidance on thresholds and case studies of what has been delivered elsewhere. This also applies to the documents considered in Appendix A, which set out various thresholds. 1.7 The second task involved gathering intelligence from current and recent plan- making by looking at recent Inspectors' reports and letters for Local Plans that include new settlement proposals. 1.8 The third task was to define what makes a settlement 'sustainable'. This task involved reviewing standards set in national policy and programmes as explored in the previous task, as well as looking at a range of guidance on new communities, for example the Government's Garden Communities Toolkit and TCPA guidance on new garden communities. This task included consideration of whether the definition of ‘sustainable’ may differ depending on the location of a new settlement. This involved drawing on guidance and research documents, such as URBED's 2014 Wolfson Prize submission3. 1.9 The fourth task was to identify size thresholds beyond which key features of a sustainable settlement, such as schools and GP services, would likely be provided. This task drew on guidance on new communities, as referred to in the third task, as well as a review of standards/thresholds set out in guidance such as Shaping Neighbourhoods for Local Health and Global Sustainability4. In addition, this was informed by a review of existing new settlement proposals, including the case studies set out in Appendix A. The Greater Cambridge context was considered through review of the adopted Local Plans, including recent new settlement / new community proposals in Greater Cambridge and conversations with Cambridgeshire County Council regarding locally-specific requirements for infrastructure provision. More weight was given to existing Cambridgeshire-specific requirements than other thresholds. 1.10 The case studies referred to in this document are primarily from the UK. A desktop search for international case studies produced very little in terms of relevant, up-to-date case studies from elsewhere. 1.11 The final task was to draw conclusions from the above research to provide recommendations on the appropriate size of a new settlement in the Greater Cambridge context. 3 URBED (2014), Uxcester Garden City: Submission for the 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize. Available at: URBED Wolfson submission. 4 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for Local Health and Global Sustainability

293

Structure of this document

1.12 The remainder of this document is structured as follows:  Chapter 2 – Policy Review considers relevant national policy, programmes and Inspector's comments relating to sustainable development and new settlements.  Chapter 3 – Defining a Sustainable Settlement seeks to develop a working definition of what 'sustainable' means for a new settlement, particularly in a Greater Cambridge context.  Chapter 4 – Estimating Sustainable Settlement Sizes in Greater Cambridge draws on the policy review and examples from other local plan processes to identify what level of growth would be considered a sustainable settlement in Greater Cambridge.  Chapter 5 – Conclusions summarises key findings from the previous chapters and provides recommendations on an appropriate approach for the consideration of new settlement sizes in Greater Cambridge .

294

Chapter 2 – Policy Review 2.1 The purpose of this policy review is to identify key policy documents and related literature and the main points they make with regards to new settlements, including policy support. This review provides a background and policy context for development of new settlements, rather than a robust evidence base to determine what a sustainable settlement size would be in Greater Cambridge. Whilst it has not directly influenced our analysis of sustainable settlement sizes, it provides a starting point for considering what makes a settlement sustainable. This is considered further and refined using various evidence sources in Chapter 3.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2.2 The NPPF recognises achieving sustainable development as the purpose of the planning system, and is built on the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. Sustainable development should achieve economic, social and environmental net gains. 2.3 Paragraph 72 of the NPPF recognises that provision of large numbers of new homes can often best be achieved through large-scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing settlements. It states that such large-scale development should (among other things):  Be well located and designed.  Be supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.  Ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an unrealistic level of self-containment), or in larger towns to which there is good access. 2.4 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF suggests that planning should manage patterns of growth to help achieve an efficient and sustainable transport system. It states that “Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes”. 2.5 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Whilst this review is strategic and does not consider design details, a sustainable development would need to be able to incorporate sustainable design, including providing for a mix of development (including green and other public space, local facilities and sustainable transport). 2.6 In summary, the NPPF shows support for new settlements, if located and planned in a sustainable way. Whilst it does not suggest what size settlements should be to be sustainable, the NPPF provides policy guidance on what The Government considers is required to make a settlement sustainable, which feeds into our analysis on settlement size.

295

Garden Communities Prospectus and Toolkit

2.7 In August 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published ‘Garden communities: prospectus’ to support the Garden Communities Programme. The prospectus was intended to encourage bids from local authorities and private sector partners for proposals for new garden communities and offers Government assistance to help deliver their development. This forms part of the Government’s aim to increase housebuilding to an average of 300,000 net new homes by the mid-2020s. 2.8 Garden communities are a particular style of new settlement, following 'garden city principles'. The Prospectus sets out requirements and expectations for schemes applying for support under the UK Government's Garden Communities Programme. Whilst this review is not specific to garden communities, the prospectus includes useful principles on what a sustainable settlement looks like. 2.9 The Prospectus defines Garden Towns as settlements of more than 10,000 homes and Garden Villages as settlements of 1,500 to 10,000 homes. It implies a preference for development of Garden Towns, presumably due to the greater infrastructure provision and self-sufficiency expected at larger developments. However, it is not clear from the Prospectus or Toolkit how these numbers have been determined and therefore further evidence is required to understand if they are likely to represent sustainable settlement sizes. 2.10 The document defines a sustainable scale of development as 'built at a scale which supports the necessary infrastructure to allow the community to function self-sufficiently on a day to day basis, with the capacity for future growth to meet the evolving housing and economic needs of the local area'. It also refers to the need for integrated and accessible transport options, particularly sustainable transport, and design aspects, including generous greenspace provision. 2.11 The Government's Garden Communities Toolkit includes information on how to decide if and where a new garden community is appropriate, as well as information on considerations such as engagement, Masterplanning, infrastructure viability, delivery and governance.

296

2.12 Figure 2.1 below5 shows garden towns and villages that are currently part of the Government's Garden Towns and Villages Programme. However, there is uncertainty in whether all of these will come forward. Research undertaken by Lichfields6 found that “Garden Communities status is not a ‘golden ticket’ to securing an allocation or planning permission, and only a third have a permission and or an allocation in an adopted plan. Another third are in emerging plans, and a full 30% are yet to achieve formal planning status. This means two thirds still need to establish the principle of development and are therefore subject to ongoing levels of planning risk. A number of proposals have experienced delay because of insufficient evidence that the schemes are well conceived or deliverable over the plan period.” 2.13 Some garden community proposals have already faced hurdles and barriers in the planning system, such as the garden communities planned in Uttlesford and North Essex, as explained further below.

5 UK Government (2020) Garden Towns and Villages Programme – January 2020 6 Lichfields (December 2019) How does your garden grow? A stock take on planning for the Government’s Garden Communities programme

297

Figure 2.1: UK Government Garden Towns and Villages Programme

298

Review of Inspectors' Reports

2.14 This section considers comments in recent Inspectors' reports and letters regarding new settlements. These show that the challenges in providing the evidence and justification for new settlement proposals to demonstrate that they meet the tests of soundness can be considerable, but that with proper appraisal and objective assessment, they can successfully be incorporated into Local Plans.

North Essex

2.15 The submitted North Essex Section 1 Local Plan proposed three garden communities: West of Braintree Garden Community; Colchester Braintree Borders Garden Community; and Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community. These ranged in scale from a minimum of 7,000 homes to a maximum of 24,000 homes when fully built out, with each delivering 2,500 homes by 2033. The proposals included a rapid transit system, ultimately linking the three garden communities to Stansted Airport. 2.16 The Inspector's letter to the North Essex Authorities (15th May 2020) raised concerns about the deliverability of the garden communities. He highlighted the need for a high level of certainty regarding infrastructure provision, including the timing of this provision, if new settlements are dependent on such infrastructure (particularly with regards to transport, in this case). The letter also emphasised the need to ensure new settlements are viable, taking into account the cost of infrastructure and land values. The Inspector came to the view that it was appropriate to factor in a 40% contingency for transport and utilities infrastructure. 2.17 He concluded that only one of the garden communities was deliverable – the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community – and that the other two should be deleted from the Local Plan.

Uttlesford

2.18 The Inspectors' letter to Uttlesford District Council (10th January 2020) raised concerns regarding the proposal of three new garden communities included in the submitted Local Plan (one of which formed part of the West of Braintree Garden Community included in the submitted North Essex Section1 Local Plan. 2.19 The Inspectors concerns were partly due to a lack of consideration of all reasonable alternatives in terms of the spatial strategy. They also raised concerns that the new settlements would not meet all of TCPA's Garden City Principles, including due to uncertainty regarding land value capture for the community, mechanisms for long-term community stewardship and implementation of timely and efficient public transport. The timetable for delivery of the garden communities was also felt to be too optimistic. The letter highlighted that self-containment of new settlements is more likely to be successful if employment uses are provided in the early phases of development in order to prevent the settlements becoming commuter towns.

299

2.20 The Inspectors' letters for both Uttlesford and North Essex express concerns about relying on proposed transport infrastructure around which there remains some uncertainty. Both also suggest that the plans should not rely on meeting such a high proportion of development through new settlements (both plans propose to allocate three new settlements but Inspectors have suggested each only allocates one).

Hart District

2.21 The submitted Hart Local Plan included Policy SS3, which sets out the Council’s commitment to preparing a New Settlement Development Plan Document (DPD) after the adoption of the Plan. Policy SS3 and its supporting text identified an Area of Search (AoS) at Murrell Green / Winchfield for the delivery of up to 5,000 dwellings through the production of a New Settlement DPD. The Plan stated that it was not required in the Plan period to meet identified housing needs, but that the Council anticipated that some 1,500 homes from the proposed new settlement would be expected to be delivered within the Plan period. 2.22 The Inspector's Report for the Hart Local Plan (10th February 2020), raised concern about the proposed new settlement had been considered and ranked against reasonable alternatives, and that the Local Plan established the principle of a new settlement for long-term growth but infrastructure considerations and viability had not been explored. He concluded that, in order to make the Local Plan sound, Policy SS3 should be deleted.

Harrogate

2.23 The Inspector's Report for the Harrogate Local Plan (30th January 2020) is supportive of the allocation of a new settlement at Green Hammerton/Cattal. Whilst recognising that focusing development at existing settlements is generally more sustainable, as this allows new residents to access the established services and facilities there, the Inspector states that settlements cannot expand indefinitely and there will come a point when this existing infrastructure is at or over capacity, therefore alternative solutions to providing sufficient housing, such as new settlements, are necessary.

300

Chapter 3 – Defining a Sustainable Settlement Environmental, social and economic considerations for settlement size and the issue of self- containment 3.1 It is recognised that, when designed and developed carefully as ‘holistic’ neighbourhoods, new settlements can encourage highly sustainable living patterns. However, new settlements can lead to an increase in car commuting when they increase the need to travel, for example in cases where they function as dormitory settlements7 or fail to provide easy access to amenities8. Trip generation is likely to reduce as settlement size increases, provided the settlement in question is reasonably self-contained and can lead to journey internalisation9. In addition, a range of sustainable energy systems (including renewable energy and CHP) can most economically be provided at the neighbourhood scale, thus favouring larger-scale new neighbourhoods10. 3.2 New settlements should provide high quality living environments with infrastructure provided on site. A sustainable settlement should also provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet a range of housing needs. The available evidence does not point to any clear consensus on the link between scale of delivery and the provision of affordable housing, with a recognition that “the relationship between housing supply and affordability is neither simple or direct”11. New settlements are generally seen as being capable of providing affordable housing. This is based on the assumption that larger-scale development can bring economies of scale, making them potentially cheaper to deliver and “enabling the delivery of significant additions to social housing stock, so long as S106 obligations can be applied to a significant level”12. However there is evidence that the delivery of affordable housing may be more significantly influenced by scheme-

7 Williams, Katie (2014), Urban form and infrastructure: a morphological review. Future of cities: working paper. Foresight, Government Office for Science. 8 GL Hearn (2016), New Settlement Scoping Study: Aylesbury Vale District Council, Aylesbury Vale District 9 TCPA (2007), Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements, London: TCPA. 10 URBED (2014), Uxcester Garden City: Submission for the 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize. Available at: URBED Wolfson submission 11 RTPI (2017), Better Planning for Housing Affordability: Position Paper. London: RTPI. 12 Bramley, Glen; Ballantyne Way, Sarah; Cousins, Lin; and Houston, Dominic (2017), The Deliverability and Affordability of Housing in the South West of England. RTPI Research Report no. 16.

301

specific factors and changing grant funding priorities, especially given the need for supporting infrastructure13. 3.3 The seminal report on ‘Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements’ produced by the TCPA and published in 200714 by the Department of Communities and Local Government stated that “the concept of self- containment does not mean that any size of place can be regarded as a sustainable community. A place needs to be large enough to support a secondary school. This means the number of homes will be in the range 4,000- 5,000 at least. The reasoning is that a community that cannot provide for its children through to adulthood is not sustainable, and that the quality of community life is impoverished if older children do not participate because they are sent elsewhere each day. Growing up in a sustainable community also provides a sound foundation for citizenship. Secondary school catchments can be used as the basic building block when designing the size of a new town.” 3.4 If large and mixed enough to enable residents to be economically active within the settlement, new settlements can support local economics and economic diversity. They can also attract inward investment, provided that development is of high quality and provides adequate buildings, services and connections for investors15. Post-war New Towns such as Milton Keynes are viewed as examples of where, as a result of investment in retail infrastructure and employment alongside housing, places were produced that “play an important role in the wider economy”16. 3.5 However, self-containment can also be a function of geography. It has long been considered that the further the distance from a central major city, the greater the probability of self-containment in terms of jobs, homes and services17. However, it has also been demonstrated that as mobility has increased over time, and people are able and willing to travel longer distances, self-containment is becoming more difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, the general rule that the further away from a central major city, the more likely self- containment can be achieved still holds. 3.6 In summary, larger new settlements are generally more likely to be considered sustainable because they can be more self-contained, although this in turn is also influenced by the proximity of the new settlement to a larger conurbation. These issues are explored in more detail below.

13 Bramley, Glen; Ballantyne Way, Sarah; Cousins, Lin; and Houston, Dominic (2017), The Deliverability and Affordability of Housing in the South West of England. RTPI Research Report no. 16. 14 TCPA (2007), Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements, London: TCPA. 15 Williams, Katie (2014), Urban form and infrastructure: a morphological review. Future of cities: working paper. Foresight, Government Office for Science. 16 TCPA (2015), New Towns and Garden Cities – Lessons for Tomorrow. Stage 2: Lessons for Delivering a New Generation of Garden Cities. London: TCPA. 17 TCPA (2007), Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements, London: TCPA.

302

Components of a sustainable settlement

3.7 'Sustainability' is a broad term incorporating environmental, social and economic factors. The Government's Garden Communities Toolkit18 sets out the following sustainability considerations for Masterplanning new communities:  Plan active and accessible travel options – Meet residents’ day-to-day needs by planning a range of uses that are easily accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.  Incorporation of sustainable design and construction – Include energy use and supply, water use and supply, ecology and biodiversity, lifespan and durability of materials, and the use of technology  Interdependence of urban systems and communities and the effects of global issues. – Plan in resilience for future change. This includes climate change, technological advances and economic uncertainty, and the ability of a place to adapt to changing circumstances  Design inclusive and intergenerational green spaces and public realm. – These need to be flexible enough to adapt to the community’s changing needs over time.  Encourage healthy and active lifestyles. – Design space to enable good access to local facilities, green space, safe places for active play, food growing and social interaction. 3.8 The Toolkit also encourages new garden communities to be future-ready by incorporating digital technology and other areas of innovation, including new methods of construction and energy production, allowance for autonomous vehicles and new trends in future technologies. 3.9 The TCPA promotes its Garden City Principles19 as the basis for a sustainable new settlement:  Land value capture for the benefit of the community.  Strong vision, leadership and community engagement.  Community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets.  Mixed-tenure homes and housing types that are genuinely affordable.

18 Homes England (2019) Garden Communities Toolkit [online], Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/garden-communities/infrastructure, Accessed: 9/6/2020 19 TCPA (date not available) Garden City Principles [online] Available at: https://www.tcpa.org.uk/garden-city-principles, Accessed: 9/6/2020

303

 A wide range of local jobs in the Garden City within easy commuting distance of homes.  Beautifully and imaginatively designed homes with gardens, combining the best of town and country to create healthy communities, and including opportunities to grow food.  Development that enhances the natural environment, providing a comprehensive green infrastructure network and net biodiversity gains, and that uses zero-carbon and energy-positive technology to ensure climate resilience.  Strong cultural, recreational and shopping facilities in walkable, vibrant, sociable neighbourhoods.  Integrated and accessible transport systems, with walking, cycling and public transport designed to be the most attractive forms of local transport. 3.10 As such, the infrastructure provided and design of development play a substantial role in whether a settlement can be considered sustainable, although the TCPA's Garden City Principles also focus on governance. Location and design can influence the environmental impact of the settlement in terms of harm to or enhancement of the ecological, landscape and historical baseline. Design can also influence social equity, inward investment, and climate change mitigation and resilience. The nature of development, i.e. what is to be built, influences social equity, economic productivity and viability of the settlement. Given that this review focuses on the size of settlement that would be sustainable, without reference to specific locations or design details, sustainability is considered primarily in relation to the nature of a new settlement, i.e. what elements would be included in settlements of different sizes. 3.11 The policy review suggests that in order to be sustainable, a settlement needs to include the following:  Necessary infrastructure and facilities (including greenspace).  Access to services and employment on-site or in larger towns to which there is good access.  A range of transport modes, particularly sustainable transport. 3.12 In order to meet the points above, we need to define what constitutes 'necessary infrastructure and facilities'. Similarly, the policy review suggests that a new settlement should have a substantial degree of self-sufficiency and that day-to-day needs of residents should be met onsite. 3.13 The Garden Communities Toolkit states that “the infrastructure needed to support a sustainable garden community can include:  Physical components, like streets, cycle paths, utilities and public realm.  Green and blue infrastructure, like open space and green corridors, water bodies and natural habitat creation.

304

 Social/ community infrastructure like education, healthcare, community, retail, play for all ages, and sports/ leisure facilities.  Strategic infrastructure needed to support delivery of the whole community, like major transport infrastructure, a secondary school or a country park.  Local infrastructure is needed to serve a neighbourhood, for example, a primary school.” 3.14 It has been assumed that the physical components of infrastructure (first bullet) would be a necessary part of any strategic development and that development would not be permitted without consulting utilities providers and ensuring these could accommodate the new development. However, if one or more new settlements or strategic urban extensions are to be included in the Local Plan, these will need to be subject to viability testing to ensure this essential infrastructure can be provided. The case studies in Table 3.1: give examples of what local authorities have taken to constitute necessary or day-today services and facilities when preparing their local plans. Table 3.1: How case studies define key facilities and services

Case Study Key services and facilities as defined by the case study Cambridge Local Plan (2018) Table 8.3 of the adopted Cambridge Local: Local Plan20 sets out example • Community or community uses that would be expected to serve different civic room. catchments (local, neighbourhood, Neighbourhood: district and city-wide). The uses specified at neighbourhood and • Community house or hall. district levels are likely to best • Primary school. represent day-to-day needs. • Day nursery. • District: • Public library. • Primary care facility. Community centre and other shared use services/buildings. • Function room. • Secondary school. • Place of worship.

20 Cambridge City Council (2018) Cambridge Local Plan 305

Harrogate District Local Plan Local convenience store. The New Settlement Background Paper for the Harrogate Local Plan21 GP.

21 Harrogate District Council (2017) Harrogate District Local Plan: New rStafford Local Plan Shops. Meeting places. General Medical Facility. Sports venue. Cultural buildings. Public The Settlement Assessment for the Stafford Local Plan22 identifies key houses. aspects of sustainability and Places of worship. community facilities.

Library. Post Office. Schools.

3.15 For the purposes of this document, services and facilities considered to meet people's day-to-day needs are set out in Table 3.2:. These have been compiled using a combination of the data sources discussed above, personal communication with Cambridge City Council and professional judgement. It is important to note that Table 3.2: presents the minimum range of services considered to meet day to day needs and provision of further services and facilities should be included where possible. In particular, the larger a new settlement, the more additional facilities should be provided, including arts and cultural venues (e.g. museums, music venues), restaurants, hotels and larger retailers.

22 Stafford Borough Council (2018) New Local Plan, Settlement Assessment

306

Table 3.2: Services and facilities required to meet day-to-day needs

Services and facilities required to meet daily needs

Local shops (including a supermarket)

Early years provision

Schools (primary and secondary)

Employment opportunities

Publicly accessible green space

Community meeting space

Public transport stop(s) (train or bus)23

GP surgery or health centre

Recreation and leisure facilities

Library

3.16 With regards to employment opportunities, new development will generate employment during the construction stage, and any new strategic site is likely to generate some employment opportunities, for example through managing or working at a new local shop, pub or school. However, 'employment provision' as referred to in Table 3.2: relates to a substantial area of land set aside specifically for employment use, rather than community, such as a business park or industrial area.

Access to existing settlements

3.17 Although garden communities and new settlements are often characterised as being ‘stand-alone’, in practice this is often not the case. For example, under the Government’s Garden Communities programme, some rely on existing services of a neighbouring settlement either as ‘linked’ new settlements, or can be considered as ‘urban extensions’ rather than self- contained communities or ‘standalone settlements’. Lichfields found that 22 of 49 garden communities are standalone settlements not functionally linked or directly adjacent to existing settlements, eight were major new settlements clearly linked to nearby towns, and the remaining 19 were urban extensions, on the edge of existing towns and cities such as Basingstoke, Bicester, Taunton and Wellingborough.

23 Footpaths and cycleways have not been included in this list as it has been assumed these can be designed into all scales of development

307

The standalone projects accounted for approximately one third of homes in the programme (35%), the linked new settlements another third (32%), and the urban extensions the final third (33%). On average, the largest of these were the linked new settlements, around 16,000 homes each, while standalone settlements and urban extensions were on average around 6,300 and 7,000 homes respectively24. 3.18 Experience from Europe highlights that there is substantial benefit in being near an existing urban conurbation that can share access to jobs and services, particularly in the early stages of developing a new settlement25. As such, some settlements could be considered sustainable with a lower level of provision, if they are located with good access to one or more larger towns or cities. Providing there are accessible, frequent and rapid connections to the larger town or city, it may be reasonable for residents to visit the larger town for some day to day needs.

3.19 Alternatively, smaller new settlements could come forward in a way that echoes Ebenezer Howard's proposal of a larger, central garden city, surrounded by smaller cities with good connections into the larger city, or the very similar 'hub and spoke' approach to expanding market towns set out in the Taylor Review26. URBED's proposal to grow central Oxfordshire through 'snowflakes'27 is a similar idea. This involves a central city, in this case Oxford, surrounded by towns/urban extensions (sub-neighbourhoods), each in turn surrounded by smaller neighbourhoods. For each settlement, the highest density development and best transport connections are in the centre, maximising access to these. On the other hand, larger new settlements may benefit from being more remote from existing towns and cities, in order to encourage self-containment. If residents have to travel further, and perhaps by less convenient modes/routes to work, shop and spend leisure time in other towns, they are more likely to carry out these activities in the settlement where they live.

24 Lichfields (December 2019) How does your garden grow? A stock take on planning for the Government’s Garden Communities programme 25 PRP, URBED and Design for Homes (2008), Beyond Eco-towns: Applying the Lessons from Europe, PRP Architects Ltd. 26 Matthew Taylor (2008) Living Working Countryside, The Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing 27 The URBED Trust (2019) Oxfordshire Futures 2050, Achieving smarter growth in Central Oxfordshire

308

3.20 The Inspector's report for the Harrogate Local Plan, discussed in Chapter 2, asserts that settlements cannot expand indefinitely, due to the capacity of existing infrastructure or due to environmental limitations, such as unacceptable harm to landscape or the historic environment. Similarly, the TCPA suggested that, whilst it may seem efficient to continue to add housing estates, business parks or urban extensions etc. to existing towns, towns will reach a limit. This could be a physical limit, such as a motorway or river, or a sense that 'the expansion is so removed from the hear of the place that it might as well not be part of the place'28. No existing evidence on the extent to which a settlement can expand has been identified; this is likely to depend on a case by case basis and is a matter of planning judgement. The extract from Urban form and infrastructure: a morphological review29 in Appendix B states that both peripheral development and new settlements can provide access to services and facilities if adequate new services are provided or there is capacity at existing services and facilities nearby.

Defining ‘good access’

3.21 Central to planning for new communities, whether new settlements or not, is to have a good understanding of what 'good access' means, as this is a fundamental ingredient of sustainability. 3.22 URBED's 'snowflake' model is based each sub-neighbourhood having a central public transport stop that is never more than 15 minutes from the town centre30 (although these are urban extensions, rather than new settlements, which would likely be further away). 3.23 Various guidance documents, such as Providing for Journeys on Foot31 and Shaping Neighbourhoods32 set standards and thresholds for acceptable walking distance to services and facilities. These are presented in Table 3.3:. Providing for Journeys on Foot gives 'desirable', 'acceptable' and 'preferred maximum' distances, whereas Shaping Neighbourhoods suggests different thresholds

28 TCPA (2007), Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements, London: TCPA. 29 Williams, Katie (2014), Urban form and infrastructure: a morphological review. Future of cities: working paper. Foresight, Government Office for Science. 29 30 URBED (2014), Uxcester Garden City: Submission for the 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize. Available at: URBED Wolfson submission 31 Institution of Highways and Transport (2000) Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot 32 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping

309

Neighbourhoods for Local Health and Global Sustainability 3.24 based on population density. The shortest ('desirable') and longest ('preferred maximum') recommended distances are included in Table 3.3:. Whilst walking distances are most relevant to provision of services and facilities within a settlement, the time such journeys would take can be used to estimate likely acceptable travel times by other modes of transport. For example, it takes about 5 minutes to walk 400m, therefore if 400m is the acceptable walking distance it can be assumed that 5 minutes would be an acceptable travel time by other modes. As such, Table 3.3: converts each distance threshold into a travel time as well. However, this can only be used as a rough guide as there are likely to be other considerations when travelling by other modes of transport. Table 3.3: Example accessibility standards

Service / facility Desirable walking distance / Preferred time maximum walking distance / time

33 Providing for Journeys on Foot standards

Town centres 200m / 2.5 minutes 800m / 10 minutes

Commuting/school 500m / 6.25 minutes 2km / 25 minutes Sight-seeing

Elsewhere 400m / 5 minutes 1,200m / 15 minutes

34 Shaping Neighbourhoods standards

Nursery/first school 400m / 5 minutes 600m / 7.5 minutes

Primary/middle school 500m / 6.25 minutes 800m / 10 minutes

Secondary school 700m / 8.75 minutes 1,200m / 15 minutes

1. 33 Institution of Highways and Transport (2000) Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot

310

34 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for Local Health and Global Sustainability 3.25 When travelling by public transport, there will likely be a short journey to a bus or tram stop, or train station and a period of time waiting at a bus or tram stop, or train station. In addition, people are likely to travel by car or public transport for longer distances and therefore may be prepared to spend more time travelling to reach their destination. WYG used the National Travel Survey to analyse how far people travel to a bus. tram/tube stop or railway station35. They found that the mean distance walked to a bus stop was 580m (7.25 minutes) and the 85th percentile (i.e. the distance within which 85% of journeys are made) was 800m (10 minutes). The average distance walked to a railway station was 1,010m (12.63 minutes) and the 85th percentile was 1,610m (just over 20 minutes).

3.26 Table 3.3: suggests that, ideally, all local services and facilities should be within 15 minutes' walk. The preferred maximum walking times for those things residents are likely to be prepared to travel further for, such as employment, a larger centre or leisure centre is generally between 20 and 25 minutes. It is therefore assumed that residents would be willing to travel a similar amount of time via other modes of transport to access such services and facilities. Ideally this would be by sustainable modes of transport and would require minimum travel. For example, if residents are travelling elsewhere for work, they could stop at a supermarket near their workplace on the way home. Taking into account WYG's findings discussed above, that people will walk around 10 minutes to a bus stop and more to a train station, for the purposes of this study, 'good access' to a larger settlement is considered to mean 10-15 minutes travel time on public transport. The door-to-door journey time will be longer than this as it will include travelling to/from the public transport stop/station. 3.27 There are a number of other guidance documents setting out standards for the provision, quality and accessibility of local services and facilities, which should be taken into account when considering and planning for new settlements. For example, Natural England's ANGSt36 and Fields in Trust's standards37 should all be referred to when considering provision of open space and recreation facilities.

35 Wakenshaw and Bunn on behalf of WYG (2015) How far do people walk? 36 Natural England (2010) 'Nature Nearby': Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance 37 Fields in Trust (2015) Guidance for Outdoor Sport and Play, Beyond the Six Acre Standard

311

3.28 ANGSt recommends that everyone, wherever they live, should have an accessible natural greenspace:  of at least 2 hectares in size, no more than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home;  at least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home;  one accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home; and  one accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home; plus  a minimum of one hectare of statutory Local Nature Reserves per thousand population. 3.29 Fields in Trust sets out recommended benchmark guidelines for formal outdoor space, play space and informal outdoor space as set out in Table 3.4:. Table 3.4: Fields in Trust recommended benchmark guidelines

Quantity Walking Quality guidelines guideline guidelines s (metres) (hectares per 1,000 populatio n) Playing 1.2 1,200  Quality appropriate to pitches the intended level of performance, All outdoor 1.6 1,200 designed to sports appropriate technical Equipped / 0.25 Local Area for standards. designated Play  Located where they play areas – 100m are of most value to Locally Equipped the community to be Area for Play – served. 400m  Sufficiently diverse Neighbourhood recreational use for Equipped Area the whole community. for Play –  Appropriately 1,000m

312

Other formal 0.8 700 landscaped. outdoor  Maintained safely and provision to the highest possible condition with available finance.  Positively managed taking account of the need for repair and replacement over time as necessary.  Provision of appropriate ancillary facilities and equipment.  Provision of footpaths.  Designed so as to be free of the fear of harm or crime.

313

Quantity Walking Quality guidelines guideline guidelines s (metres) (hectares per 1,000 populatio n)  Local authorities can set their own quality benchmark standards for playing pitches, taking into account the level of play, topography, necessary safety margins and optimal orientation. Parks and 0.8 710  Parks to be of Green gardens Flag status.  Appropriately Amenity 0.6 480 landscaped. green space  Positive Natural and 1.8 720 management. semi-Natural  Provision of footpaths.  Designed so as to be free of the fear of harm or crime.

Identifying thresholds

3.30 There is little guidance available regarding assumptions on the level of growth required to make provision of community services and facilities, such as those listed in Table 3.2:, viable. This may be because this varies depending on local context. For example, Lichfields found that, based on the 40 schemes it identified in the Garden Communities programme, the levels of provision of schools between sites vary enormously, likely due to both existing provision and the use of need assessments by planners to determine education capacity requirements. They found within Garden Communities individual sites as small as 1,500 homes that will provide a secondary school, and a site of 3,300 homes that will provide two secondary schools, but there were also a number of examples of a site of over 2,500 homes providing no secondary school, and three sites providing two secondary schools were all over 2,500 homes.

314

3.31 Lichfields also noted that, in some cases, provision for secondary schools entailed only the land required, rather than full build-cost funding by the scheme38. 3.32 We reviewed various documents to draw some general conclusions and compare opinions on the scale of development likely to be required to enable delivery of key services and facilities, as set out below. It is noted that the Garden Communities Prospectus is a political document to encourage bids for new garden communities as part of the Government’s aim to increase housebuilding to an average of 300,000 net new homes by the mid-2020s. Furthermore the document does not explain the reasoning behind the figures of 1,500 and 10,000 homes. Whilst Policy Exchange is a right wing think tank (and therefore somewhat politically motivated), it is considered that the points set out below regarding settlement size are based on reasonable assumptions. These documents are not relied on to determine settlement size in this report, but provide a useful starting point for thinking. 3.33 The Garden Communities Prospectus suggests a 'new settlement' should be at least 1,500 new homes, as it defines Garden Villages as settlements of 1,500 to 10,000 homes and Garden Towns as settlements of more than 10,000 homes. 3.34 Policy Exchange suggests that garden villages would be around 1,500 to 5,000 homes39, although as with the Garden Communities Prospectus, it is not clear what evidence this is drawn from. They include some assumptions about the level of infrastructure that would be viable for such villages, as set out below:  Around 1,500 homes allows a village built around a hub of primary school, sports hub, and local centre with household recycling facilities. It would hope to attract a café/small shops/a post office; with some live/work opportunities too, but it will clearly function in relation to nearby larger settlements for facilities like hospital healthcare, and main retail shopping.  Around 5,000 homes allows a secondary school as well as two primary schools and a small but vibrant village centre (as above), but including an employment area, recreational space and landscaped areas. Whilst it probably won’t attract a full range of national retailers, this would operate more as a self-sustaining community than its smaller counterpart.

38 Lichfields (December 2019) How does your garden grow? A stock take on planning for the Government’s Garden Communities programme. 39 Policy Exchange (2015) Garden Villages: Empowering localism to solve the housing crisis

315

3.35 The TCPA's guidance on garden cities40 suggests that new garden settlements generally consist of around 5,000 homes or more, with garden cities starting at around 15,000. The TCPA's guidance suggests that development should aim to provide at least one job per household. Whilst it is recognised that this guidance is for garden cities and that smaller new settlements may rely more on commuting to other nearby towns, it sets a standard to aim for. The guidance also recognises that no settlement is wholly self-contained and therefore good public transport links should be available to access employment in nearby centres as well. 3.36 Viability Testing Local Plans: Advice for planning practitioners41 draws on the (now withdrawn) 2010 Code for Sustainable Homes Cost Review to suggest that 'strategic' sites (including new settlements and strategic extensions) would be around 5,000 homes and larger. 3.37 Both the Garden Communities Prospectus and Policy Exchange document suggest that the starting point for a new dwelling is 1,500 homes, and this would be a village with a more limited range of services and facilities. However, the TCPA's guidance on garden cities and the Viability Testing Local Plans document suggest that around 5,000 homes is a starting point for new settlements (TCPA suggests this is based on provision of a secondary school42). This may suggest that whilst a smaller settlement could meet local needs to an extent through provision of a more limited range of services and facilities, larger settlements are likely to be more viable. 3.38 The North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study43 noted that the first garden cities (Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City) consisted for around 15,000 to 20,000 homes. First and second generation new towns, such as Skelmersdale, Peterlee and Hatfield generally consist of around 15,000 to 20,000 dwellings (although some are notably larger, around 40,000 dwellings or up to 59,000 at Telford), whereas third generation new towns, such as Milton Keynes and Peterborough are much larger, at around 70,000 to 90,000 dwellings. These numbers are substantially higher than those discussed in the documents above. This does not mean that smaller new settlements are necessarily unsustainable if they provide the critical mass of population to ensure viable provision of services and facilities. However, the North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study showed that this can vary greatly.

40 TCPA (2014) The art of building a garden city: garden city standards for the 21st century 41 Local Housing Delivery Group (2012) Viability Testing for Local Plans: Advice for planning practitioners 42 TCPA (2007), Best Practice in Urban Extensions and New Settlements, London: TCPA. 43 Mott MacDonald, on behalf of ATLAS (2016) North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study.

316

For example, the study found that in new towns on average, there are around 1,500 dwellings to a primary school, although Skelmersdale has 700 dwellings per primary school and Telford and Peterborough have more than 2,500 dwellings per primary school. Similarly, it found that provision of GP surgeries in new towns varied from one per 4,000 people up to one per 16,000 people. It is noted that the study also highlights that the new towns considered were founded and advanced through an historic context and a different planning environment to today.

3.39 Appendix A sets out thresholds for the services and facilities set out in Table 3.2: from various sources. It also sets out the services and facilities that have been provided, or are planned to be provided at new settlements/communities recently constructed and proposed. This demonstrates that the level provision of services and facilities that can expected to be provided at new settlements varies from place to place, but there does appear to be a general trend of a lower level of services being provided at settlements or urban extensions of around 1,000 to 2,000 homes and then a higher level of services being provided at larger strategic sites of around 3,000 to 5,000 homes and larger. The examples included in Appendix A do not generally reflect a lower level of services being provided at strategic extensions, when compared to new settlements.

317

Chapter 4 – Estimating Sustainable Settlement Sizes in Greater Cambridge

The Greater Cambridge context

4.1 Comprising Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District, Greater Cambridge covers approximately 360 square miles, with a total population of 290,000 people. Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire have a unique relationship, in that South Cambridgeshire entirely surrounds Cambridge City. Greater Cambridge borders Huntingdonshire and East Cambridgeshire to the north; Central Bedfordshire to the west; North Hertfordshire, Uttlesford and Braintree to the south, and to the east, it borders West Suffolk. 4.2 Whilst Cambridge City is distinctly urban, South Cambridgeshire is a mainly rural district. With Cambourne in the west, Histon to the north and Sawston in the south being the most populated settlements in Greater Cambridge, after Cambridge. Greater Cambridge contains a wealth of historic assets, with over 4,000 listed buildings, 32 conservation areas and 24 registered parks and gardens across Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. There were settlements in the locality of Cambridge in the Bronze Age and Iron Age, but the Romans built the first town at Cambridge. The bridge across the River Cam or Granta, from which the town takes its name, had existed since at least 875. The town is recorded in the Domesday book and by the 1200's it was a thriving commercial town and the University of Cambridge had been founded44,45,46. 4.3 Cambridge’s internationally renowned university, its world-class reputation for research, science and technology excellence, and its high quality of life, has led to considerable growth pressure over recent decades. Being a historic city surrounded by Green Belt, a number of new settlements have been planned and established in Greater Cambridge in recent years. These are set out in Table 4.1:.

44 https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/history/early-records 45 http://www.localhistories.org/cambridge.html

318

46 http://www.colc.co.uk/cambridge/cambridge/history.htm Table 4.1: New settlements in Greater Cambridge

Settlement Description Bar Hill Bar Hill village was planned in the late 1950s to address a housing shortage in South Cambridgeshire. The first residents moved in in 1967 but the village was not completed until 1989.

Cambourne Cambourne consists of around 4,250 homes and comprises the villages of Lower, Greater and Upper Cambourne. The first planning permission for Cambourne was given in 1996 and construction started in 1998. Building work began on Upper Cambourne in 2008. Cambourne West, which will be a fourth, linked village is allocated in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (Policy SS/8).

Northstowe Northstowe is a new town based on and around the site of the former RAF Oakington base. Northstowe was allocated in the 2003 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan and the first phase of development was given planning permission in 2012. The first homes were occupied in 2017. The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 allocates an extension to Northstowe (Policy SS/5), which will contribute to meeting the 10,000 homes already planned for. Waterbeach The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 allocates a New Town new town of 8,000 to 9,000 dwellings on and around the former Waterbeach Barracks (Policy SS/6).

Bourn Airfield The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 allocates a new village of around 3,500 dwellings at Bourn Airfield (Policy SS/7).

319

4.4 In addition to the new settlements set out above, the adopted Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans allocated a number of other strategic sites, namely Orchard Park, Land Between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road, Cambridge East and North East Cambridge (previously referred to as 'Cambridge Northern Fringe East'). North East Cambridge in particular, will be of a scale equivalent to a new settlement, providing over 8,000 new homes and 28,000 jobs, and will provide a range of infrastructure to meet the needs arising from development and existing local needs.

Defining a sustainable settlement size in the Greater Cambridge context

4.5 Drawing on the information presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix A, we have identified reasonable assumptions regarding the amount of housing required to enable viable provision of local services and facilities in new communities in Greater Cambridge. These assumptions are set out in Table 4.2:. In order to ensure these are relevant to a Greater Cambridge context, locally specified standards have been used as the threshold, where available, as there is greater certainty and precedent in this being required (and it is assumed, delivered) locally (i.e. the standards for early years provision, a primary school, a secondary school and a library in Table 4.2: reflect Cambridgeshire County Council Standards). The basis for all standards are set out in Table 4.2:. It has been assumed that a smaller settlement of 1,500 homes would provide a number of services and facilities and this has been taken as a starting point for the rows in Table 4.2: with more limited local evidence. This has been applied for those services and facilities that the Policy Exchange document47 assumed would be provided at this size, if this is in line with what is proposed to be provided at East of Biggleswade, which is the smallest case study included, at 1,500 homes.

320

Table 4.2: Amount of housing required to enable viable provision of local services and facilities in new communities

Services and Approximate How threshold has been facilities required to minimum number determined meet daily needs of new dwellings required to enable provision

Local shops / 1,500 Even a small new settlement local/town centre would be expected to provide (preferably including a some local shops. This is post office) somewhat corroborated by the examples given in Table A.2: Houlton in Rugby and Former Alconbury Airfield and Grange Farm in Huntingdonshire are both expected to provide a main/district centre or local centre per 1,550 people and 1,666 people respectively. The new village East of Biggleswade, the smallest example in Appendix A (1,500 homes) is expected to provide 'a mix of retail'48. Early years provision 1,000 Cambridgeshire County Council requirement (to be integrated into/provided alongside primary school). Primary school 1,000 Cambridgeshire County Council requirement.

Secondary school 3,000 Cambridgeshire County Council requirement.

48 https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/45/planning_policy/468/local_plan_- _overview/4

321

Services and ApproximateApproximate HowHow threshold threshold has has been been facilities required to minimumminimum numbernumber determineddetermined meet daily needs ofof newnew dwellingsdwellings requiredrequired toto enableenable provisionprovision

Employment 3,500 All examples in Table A.2 are opportunities expected to provide employment opportunities, except the new village East of Biggleswade (1,500 homes). There is little guidance or policy on this matter, but it is noted that the second smallest case study, Bourn Airfield at 3,500 homes, is expected to provide employment land, hence the 3,500 homes figure. It is noted that the Policy Exchange document49 suggests a settlement of around 5,000 homes would provide an employment area, but as this is not well evidenced in the document it has not been relied on. Publicly 450 All examples in Table A.2 are accessible expected to provide publicly green/open accessible green/open space space. Standards in the existing Local Plans are set out per population, rather than giving threshold of the number of homes that would trigger the need for new open space. Nevertheless, the 450 homes figure here is based on the approximate number of homes that the existing local plan standard thresholds relate to (see Appendix A). It is anticipated that any new settlement will be larger than 450 dwellings and will provide publicly accessible green/open space.

322

Services and Approximate How threshold has been facilities required minimum number of determined to meet daily new dwellings needs required to enable provision

Community 1,500 Shaping Neighbourhoods meeting space suggests development of around 1,670 homes would warrant a new community hall or similar. Standards in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan give a floorspace figure per population, which is difficult to translate to facilities per number of homes. All examples in Table A.2 are expected to provide new community meeting space, often with an emphasis on multifunctional space. Given that this includes the smallest case study, East of Biggleswade (1,500 homes), which is similar to the Shaping Neighbourhoods threshold, 1,500 homes is considered an appropriate threshold.

323

Services and Approximate How threshold has been facilities required to minimum number determined meet daily needs of new dwellings required to enable provision

Public transport 1,500 It is essential that any new stop(s) (train or settlement is served by public bus)50 transport, in order for it to be sustainable. All examples in Table A.2 are expected to include public transport links (although this wasn't discussed in the information regarding Houlton). Documents considered in Table A.1 gave little information on this, although it is noted that the North Essex SA assumed a new community of a minimum 2,000 homes would include transport links. Given this and that even the smallest of the new community case studies considered (East of Biggleswade) included public transport links, 1,500 homes is considered a suitable threshold. GP surgery or 4,500 With regards to the case health centre studies in Table A.2, Bourn Airfield at 3,500 homes is not expected to include a GP surgery, whereas the next largest example in Huntingdonshire, at 5,000 homes, is expected to provide one.

50 Footpaths and cycleways have not been included in this list as it has been assumed these can be designed into all scales of development

324

Services and Approximate How threshold has been facilities required to minimum number determined meet daily needs of new dwellings required to enable provision

The North Essex SA used a threshold of 4,500 homes, informed by discussions with the North Essex and Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which is between the examples above and is also close to the Shaping Neighbourhoods figure of 4,167 homes, As such, 4,500 is considered a suitable threshold. We were advised by NHS England and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group that alocal threshold has not been identified at this time. However, the Councils will continue to work with healthcare infrastructure providers as the Local Plan progresses, in order to ensure suitable provision of healthcare facilities for all scales of new residential development. Recreation and leisure 1,500 All examples in Table A.2 are facilities expected to provide new recreation and leisure facilities, including East of Biggleswade (1,500 homes) (Bourn Airfield may rely on larger facilities elsewhere ie. Cambourne). Standards identified in Table A.1 are generally for specific types of facility. It is expected that smaller new settlements (taken to be 1,500 homes) would provide some level of recreation and leisure facilities, as reflected in proposals for East of Biggleswade.

325

Services and facilities Approximate minimum How threshold has been required to meet daily number of new determined needs dwellings required to enable provision

Library (could be mobile All Cambridgeshire County Council library stop, access advised that any new settlement point or full library) would be required to provide some kind of library provision. This could be a full library (larger settlements), satellite library, access point or a mobile library stop (smaller settlements). Information regarding library provision was not available for many of the new community case studies in Table A.2.

4.6 What constitutes a sustainable settlement size will depend on a number of factors, including the location and pattern of development. In order for a new settlement to provide all of the services and facilities set out in Table 4.2:, it would have to consist of at least 4,500 homes. This 4,500 homes threshold relates to the threshold for GP surgeries. This is because this is the largest minimum threshold for all services considered, i.e. 4,500 homes would be expected to provide all of the services and facilities listed in Table 4.2:), but a smaller number of homes may not provide for a GP surgery (but may provide other services listed in Table 4.2:).

4.7 A smaller settlement size may be acceptable for a new settlement, where other services and facilities in a larger centre can be easily accessed nearby (as discussed in Chapter 3, such services and facilities should be within around 15 minutes travel time on public transport time, excluding travel to/from public transport stops). It should be noted that the need to provide the services and facilities set out in Table 4.2: will depend on local circumstances. For example, if the new settlement has good access to an existing employment area, but none of the other amenities listed, then just the amount of employment land provided within the new settlement itself could perhaps be reduced. This is explored further below.

326

Location and pattern of new development

4.8 In terms of existing access to significant services and facilities the only relevant larger settlement with a substantially higher level of services and facilities within Greater Cambridge is the city of Cambridge. When considering access to Cambridge, the focus is likely to be on the city centre, where retail and leisure uses are focused and is likely to be most accessible by public transport. The Cambridge City Centre Capacity Study51 also recognised that the city centre is an increasingly important location for office development. As Cambourne, Northstowe and Waterbeach continue to expand, they could play a future role in serving surrounding settlements as well. It is noted that the planned new settlement at Bourn Airfield is expected to deliver a slightly lower level of infrastructure provision compared to other new settlements considered in Table A.2, due to its proximity to Cambourne. For example, it is likely that the Bourn Airfield site will include a satellite library, with residents having access to a larger library in Cambourne if needed and the larger recreation facilities at Cambourne are expected to be used by Bourn Airfield residents. 4.9 It is recognised that reliance on existing services and facilities in Cambridge depends on the capacity of these. New development can make contributions to expanding the capacity of existing services and facilities, but there will also be a physical limit to their expansion. For example, the 2013 Retail and Leisure Study52 noted limited scope for expansion of retail and leisure opportunities in the City Centre. As such, it is recommended that all facilities set out in Table 4.2: are provided at any new settlement, regardless of its proximity to Cambridge. 4.10 New settlements located at the edge of Greater Cambridge may be able to rely on existing services and facilities in larger towns and cities beyond the South Cambridgeshire boundary, such as Letchworth Garden City and Huntingdon, and possibly also smaller settlements, such as Haverhill and Royston. This would require close cross-boundary working with neighbouring authorities to establish where existing services and facilities have capacity and the extent of contributions required from development to improve or expand these. 4.11 Closely linked to the issue of access to existing centres, services and facilities is the issue of the pattern of new development, which will have implications for the level of service provision. For example, it could be sustainable to create a new community on the edge of Cambridge itself, much like the regeneration of North East Cambridge, which can both make use of existing services and facilities within the city as well as providing new and improved facilities to serve the development and the wider area

51 ARUP (2013) Cambridge City Centre Capacity Study 52 GVA (2013) Cambridge Retail and Leisure Study Update 2013

327

Similarly, new settlements could grow around Cambridgeshire using the 'hub and spoke' approach to expanding market towns set out in the Taylor Review53, and URBED's proposal of growing towns in a 'snowflake' pattern54, as set out in Chapter 3. Such expansions to Cambridge would likely need to provide a lower level of new infrastructure, and could focus on provision of services and facilities that are currently at or over-capacity, or that the location is deficient in. 4.12 Similarly, new strategic developments could adjoin existing settlements in order to both utilise and bolster their service provision. For example, this could include further growth at an existing settlement, such as one of the villages, further growth at Northstowe or Waterbeach, or an additional village at Cambourne. This could be particularly valuable where a smaller settlement could be brought to a critical mass for provision of new infrastructure, such as a railway station or other form of rapid transit. In 2014, URBED claimed that it was not possible to build a new city from scratch in the economic context of the report, and promoted the idea that new cities should grow from an existing, mature town55. This would be somewhere with good rail connections, educational facilities, cultural facilities and a thriving town centre, which are considered unachievable in the early years of a new settlement. Whilst a smaller, existing village may not include all these amenities, the principle can be carried across. Expanding an existing village will enable development to capitalise on existing infrastructure, particularly in the early years when there would otherwise not be enough residents to render some infrastructure viable. New development may also help support and expand existing services and facilities. In addition, expanding a village may help ensure a sense of place and a central hub for the community from the beginning. However, as URBED noted, one of the key challenges in expansion of existing settlements is gaining local support56. This is often related to a somewhat inevitable change in character of the settlement and actual or perceived impacts on the environment. There may also be fears that new development will not invest sufficiently in the infrastructure needed to support the expansion. 4.13 Rather than physical proximity to a larger settlement, a new settlement could share services with another if it is linked by frequent and rapid public transport links. As discussed above, around 10-15 minutes travel time on public transport (excluding travel to/from public transport stops) is considered 'good' access, although this transport must also be frequent, reliable and have sufficient capacity. This approach to development could result in a single new settlement with links to Cambridge. Alternatively, a string of smaller settlements could be created along a public transport corridor, such as the planned Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro or the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway.

53 Matthew Taylor (2008) Living Working Countryside, The Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing 54 The URBED Trust (2019) Oxfordshire Futures 2050, Achieving smarter growth in Central Oxfordshire 55 , 56 URBED (2014), Uxcester Garden City: Submission for the 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize. Available at: URBED Woldson submission

328

Additional considerations

4.14 The sustainability and success of new settlements depends on factors beyond the infrastructure they provide. Appendix B reproduces a table from Williams (2014) that summarises the ‘conditions for achieving successful new places to 2065’, and includes consideration of new peripheral developments and dispersed development in addition to new settlements. Ultimately the table concludes that, while the ‘dispersed development’ model raises challenges for creating successful places, both urban extensions and standalone new settlements can become ‘successful places’ socially, economically and environmentally, provided they are thoughtfully designed, appropriately located, and well served (at an early stage) with adequate infrastructure. 4.15 URBED57 suggests that new garden cities are most successful when based on an existing settlement with good rail connections, infrastructure, services and facilities, or at least within proximity to growing urban conurbations so that they can share access to infrastructure, jobs and services in the early stages58. In particular, high quality sustainable transport is required to create behaviour change from the start. In other European countries, amenities such as shops and restaurants have been encouraged to move into new communities early through low or rent-free periods and use of temporary space59. URBED's 2014 Wolfson Prize submission60 advocated substantial growth of an existing town through a 'hub and spoke' model, with urban extensions spaced out around the existing urban area but only joining to it at a small point. Whilst Greater Cambridge is not necessarily looking for new cities, it is worth bearing in mind these considerations when establishing any new settlement 'from scratch'. 4.16 As mentioned in Chapter 3, there are many more aspects to sustainability than what services and facilities are provided on-site. New settlements should seek to be as self- contained as possible. For example, there should be a variety of employment provision and this should be of a type to meet local need. New settlements should maximise the green infrastructure network, seek opportunities for community food growing and implement sustainable technologies that would be more challenging to retrofit into existing settlements, such as district heating networks, in order to be truly sustainable. 4.17 Other design factors that will need to be considered include density. Higher densities require less land-take and may therefore help to preserve the natural environment and countryside. However, this may mean lower levels of greenspace within the settlement itself, including fewer and/or smaller parks and gardens. Higher densities are likely to enhance accessibility to services and facilities, as larger numbers of people will be within walking distance of, for example, a school or railway station. However, this needs to be planned alongside the capacity of such infrastructure. Higher density development is

57 URBED (2014), Uxcester Garden City: Submission for the 2014 Wolfson Economics Prize. Available at: URBED Wolfson submission 58, 59 PRP, URBED and Design for Homes (2008), Beyond Eco-towns: Applying the Lessons from Europe, PRP Architects Ltd. 60 URBED (2014), Uxcester Garden City: Submission for the 2014

329

Wolfson Economics Prize. Available at: URBED Wolfson submission

330

likely to be focused on shared central resources, which offers the potential to generate a more extensive town centre to serve all neighbourhoods, whereas lower density development is likely to depend more heavily on local centres, which may not have as wide a range of services and facilities, or retail choice. Transport infrastructure is also likely to be more centralised and may therefore be more cost efficient as more people can be served by fewer links. However, if behaviour of residents does not take advantage of this, it could lead to congestion in the centre of the settlement61. Transport for New Homes62 suggests that many of the garden villages and towns built through the government's garden communities programme are not delivering modal shift set out in visions for these developments, for example in masterplans, local plans, or funding bids. Transport for New Homes found that the garden communities being built are still car- oriented, often at the expense of front gardens, sufficient and attractive pavements and street trees. It also found that new garden communities were associated with significant transport infrastructure to mitigate the expected increase in cars from the development, seemingly rather than seeking to reduce the increase in car use via modal shift. It was also suggested that some garden communities were located so as to 'unlock' strategic road infrastructure. Funding and accessibility (particularly walking distance and barriers such as busy roads) were recorded as key factors limiting modal shift. The report also linked the lack of high quality walking and cycling infrastructure to wider issues, such as poor performance of local shops (as footfall is low), inactive lifestyles, isolation and discrimination against those who can't drive or struggle to afford to buy and run a car. Whilst it is noted that Transport for New Homes is devoted to advocating for development that does not require reliance on private vehicles, it is helpful to bear in mind that development needs to include robust, practical principles for ensuring modal shift and to ensure this is delivered.

The test of deliverability

4.18 Of critical importance in the successful planning and delivery of new settlements are governance arrangements and viability. This is very much evidence in the Inspectors’ considerations of new settlement proposals in Local Plans for North Essex, Uttlesford, and Hart District. Realistic and robust assumptions and calculations regarding the costs of land assembly, infrastructure, provision of affordable housing, including contingencies and inflation with regard to both construction costs and sale values are necessary. As Lichfields concluded, a number of garden communities proposals have experienced delay because of insufficient evidence that the schemes are well conceived or deliverable over the plan period. Promoters and local authorities need to be confident they can answer key questions, such as:

61 Mott MacDonald, on behalf of ATLAS (2016) North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study. 62 Transport for New Homes (2020) Garden Villages and Garden Towns: Visions and Reality.

331

Why is the site’s inclusion in the spatial strategy for the area justified when assessed against reasonable alternatives?  How will the project be implemented in light of relevant information about land ownership, delivery model, and infrastructure requirements?  Is the scheme viable when taking into account the necessary infrastructure, affordable housing provision, a realistic delivery trajectory and robust cost and value assumptions?  If external funding is required – e.g. from Government – but not yet secured, how should that uncertainty be factored into its role within the Local Plan housing trajectory?  How does the planning policy identifying the site actually operate? What further planning tools are required to help unlock the scheme and ensure it delivers in a way that meets core policy requirements governing the quality of design and place? 4.19 If the promoters and local authorities can answer these questions positively, with confidence, and with a sound commercial as well as planning case, then new settlement proposals stand a much better chance of navigating the examination process, and being delivered on the ground.

332

Chapter 5 – Conclusions

5.1 Table 4.2: sets out minimum thresholds for a variety of essential services and facilities. However, the purpose of this document is to identify an overall sustainable settlement size. General consensus from the literature is that new settlements should constitute at least around 1,500 homes, although some sources seem to suggest 5,000 homes is more appropriate. 5.2 Overall, we recommend that a settlement of around 4,500 homes would be the minimum to be sustainable in Greater Cambridge and that the most sustainable option is to provide settlements of at least this size even in proximity to Cambridge. This is because a settlement of this size would be able to accommodate everyday services and facilities such as local shops, early years provision, a primary and secondary school, employment, green space, community meeting space, public transport infrastructure, a GP surgery or health centre and recreation facilities, which are required to provide the opportunity to meet needs locally without having to travel elsewhere (i.e. a measure of self- containment). This in turn can help to foster community cohesion and identity. However, it is acknowledged that the location and pattern of development of new communities will influence the appropriate size and smaller developments may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Larger settlements are likely to be more sustainable to an extent, as they are likely to be more self-contained, although the goal of self-containment needs to be approached with a degree of realism. 5.3 In practice, sustainable settlement size will vary between locations within Greater Cambridge, due to environmental constraints. In addition, new settlements should maximise sustainability through design, and a key consideration will be the promotion of walking and cycling within new settlements, and excellent public transport connections, particularly with Cambridge, but also with the wider strategic public transport network. 5.4 Finally, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire Council are in the strong position of having the experience of planning for new settlement proposals through the Local Plan process, and implementation in practice. The Councils will be aware of the considerable challenges of delivering new settlements, in terms of funding, securing services, facilities, infrastructure, and job creation, long lead- in times and phasing, as well as creating a genuine sense of community. The Councils will also be aware of the opportunities that new settlements provide, whether stand-alone, or linked to existing settlements, to design-in sustainability considerations, drawing on the lessons learned to date.

LUC

November 2020

333

Appendix A – Thresholds for Provision of New Services and Facilities

Table A.1 below sets out thresholds for provision of various services and facilities as required by the County Council, existing policy or set out in guidance documents. County Council requirements are expected to have a strong chance of being delivered, as the County Council is the local education authority. Whilst new requirements should be based on up to date evidence and not be solely based on existing local plan requirements, standards set out in current local plans are included, as these are locally specific and have been tested and found sound through the Examination process. The North Essex SA assumptions are included because they were drawn from an exercise in which a number of parties were consulted to identify reasonable threshold assumptions. For the SA, assumptions regarding thresholds for delivery of healthcare services were drawn from discussions with the North Essex and Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). Other assumptions were drawn from extensive liaison with site promoters and a local interest group. Table A.2 sets out case studies of relatively recently constructed or proposed new communities and what infrastructure has been or is proposed to be delivered at these sites.

334

Table A.1: Approximate thresholds for provision of new services and facilities

Service/facility

Source Local shops Local town/local / centre Early years provision Primary school Secondary school Employment provision Publicly accessible open green/ space Community meeting space Public transport services GP surgery health or centre Recreation and leisure facilities Library Cambridgeshire 1,000 1,000 3,000 Require County Council63 homes (to homes homes d (more be detail on provided case- alongside by-case primary basis) school) Cambridge Local 2.2 ha 1.2 ha Plan64 informal outdoor open sport per space per 435 homes 435 people. homes 1 sports hall per 5,652 homes.

63 Communicated in a phone call between LUC and Cambridgeshire County Council 64 The figures in this row were presented in the source as standards per population. They have been converted to standards per household (using an average household size of 2.3 people (Cambridgeshire Insight, Census 2011 Profile: Cambridge, available at:

335

Service/facility

Source Local shops Local town/local / centre Early years provision Primary school Secondary school Employment provision Publicly accessible open green/ space Community meeting space Public transport services GP surgery health or centre Recreation and leisure facilities Library 1 swimming pool per 21,739 homes. South 1.2 ha 111m2 1.6 ha Cambridgeshire informal per 417 outdoor Local Plan open homes sport per (2018)65 space per 417 homes 417 homes Shaping Local 2,000 1,667 3,333 1,667 4,167 Leisure Neighbourhoods centre homes homes homes homes homes centre per for Local Health per 2,500 10,000 homes homes District centre/ superstor

65 The figures in this row were presented in the source as standards per population. They have been converted to standards per household (using

336

Service/facility

Source Local shops Local town/local / centre Early years provision Primary school Secondary school Employment provision Publicly accessible open green/ space Community meeting space Public transport services GP surgery health or centre Recreation and leisure facilities Library and Global e per Sustainability66,67 10,000 homes North Essex SA ≥2,000 ≥2,000 ≥2,000 ≥4,500 Assumed ≥2,000 ≥2,000 ≥2,000 ≥4,500 Assumptions homes homes homes homes homes homes homes homes

(note 2,000 (≥2,000 (>2000 homes was homes homes) considered would Would starting point for contribute contribute new community) to to expanding expanding existing existing schools facilities off -site

66 Barton, Grant and Guise (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods for Local Health and Global Sustainability 67 The figures in this row were presented in the source as standards per population. They have been converted to standards per household (using an average household size of 2.4 people) Cambridgeshire Insight, Census 2011 Profile: South Cambridgeshire, available at: https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/population/census-2011/) to ensure they are comparable with other standards presented

337

Table A.2: Examples of service and facility provision at new settlements/ new communities ('Y' indicates that this type of facility is provided at the new community)

Service/ facility

Case Study Shops / / Shops town/local centre Years Early Provision Primary school Secondary school Employment provision Publicly accessible space green Community meeting space Public transport services GP surgery health or centre Recreation and leisure facilities Library Current South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Waterbeach Y Y Y (x5) Y (x2) Y Y Y (111 sqm Y Y Y Y New Town per 417 (8,000-9,000 homes) homes)68 New Village at Y Y Y (x2) Y Y Y Y (x2 Y Y (possibly Y Bourn Airfield multifunctio off-site) (satelli (3,500 homes)69 nal te) buildings)

68 South Cambridgeshire District Council (2019) Waterbeach New Town SPD, Available at: https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/13057/waterbeach- new-town-spd-low-res-feb-2019.pdf, Accessed: 05/06/2020 69 South Cambridgeshire District Council (2019) Bourn Airfield New Village SPD, Available at: https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/14163/bourn- airfield-spd-adopted-2-10-2019.pdf, Accessed: 05/06/2020

338

Service/ facility

Case Study Shops / / Shops town/local centre Years Early Provision Primary school Secondary school Employment provision Publicly accessible space green Community meeting space Public transport services GP surgery health or centre Recreation and leisure facilities Library Northstowe Y (town Y Y (x7) Y (x1) Y Y Y Y Y Y Possi (10,000 and local bly homes)70 centres) Cambourne Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (4,250 homes in Lower Great and Upper Cambourne) New settlements/ communities across the county Houlton, Rugby Y (district Y (x3) Y Y Y Y ? Y Y (6,200 homes)71 centre and 3 local centres)

70 Gallagher and Homes & Communities Agency (2012) Northstowe Development Framework Document 71 Planning application R11/0699 to Rugby Borough Council. 339

Service/ facility

Case Study cilities Shops / / Shops town/local centre Years Early Provision Primary school Secondary school Employment provision Publicly accessible space green Community meeting space Public transport services GP surgery health or centre Recreation and leisure fa Library Former Y (main Y Y (x3) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Alconbury centres Airfield and and up to Grange Farm, two Huntingdonshire secondar (5,000 homes)72 y centres) Cranbrook, East Y Y Y (x3) Y (all- Y Y Y Y Y Y Possi Devon (7,770 through) bly homes)73 East of Y Y Y (contributi Y Y Y (contrib Y Biggleswade, ons utions Central towards towards Bedfordshire off-site off- site (1,500 homes)74 facilities) facilities

72 Huntingdonshire District Council (2019) Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036, Available at: https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/media/3872/190516-final-adopted-local-plan-to-2036.pdf, Accessed: 8/6/2020 73 East Devon District Council (2017) The Cranbrook Plan: Preferred Approach, Available at: https://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2271420/d- 170928- masterplan-document-title-update.pdf, Accessed: 8/6/2020 74 Central Bedfordshire (date not available) Local Plan – overview, One new village east of Biggleswade, Available at: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/45/planning_policy/468/local_plan_- _overview/4, Accessed: 8/6/2020 340

Appendix B – Conditions for Achieving Successful New Places

341

Table B.1: Conditions for achieving successful new places to 2065 (reproduced from Williams, 201475)

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK Successful urban forms are Can this be achieved? Can this be achieved? Can this be achieved? ones that: Environmental characteristics Make sustainable use of the Yes, if sited in appropriate Yes, if sited in Not usually, although individual UK’s land resource locations: e.g. not on land of appropriate locations i.e. developments might not be high ecologically/landscape well connected enough, problematic, in aggregate, continued (accommodating value. not on land of high ad hoc dispersal would develop demographic change without ecological/landscape valued open land. loss of valued land) value Make sustainable use of the Yes, if planned sensitively. But Yes, if delivered using Partly, small scale changes may not UK’s environmental there may be some inevitable sustainable planning and be problematic, but in aggregate are resources (including loss if developing on greenfield design principles, inefficient and may damage protecting and enhancing sites. including best practices biodiversity. biodiversity) (e.g. in Sustainability Impact Assessment, responsible sourcing, and integrated infrastructure – such as waste to energy). But there may be some inevitable loss if

75 Williams, Katie (2014), Urban form and infrastructure: a morphological review. Future of cities: working paper. Foresight, Government Office for Science. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324161/14-808-urban- form-and- infrastructure-1.pdf

342

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK developing on greenfield sites. Are physically adapted for Yes, if future climate is Yes, if adaptation is Partly, if individual developments the UK’s future climate considered from the outset in considered during design consider future climate from the design, planning and and construction. outset in design, planning and construction. construction. But harder to plan/manage collective/community scale solutions. Do not contribute to future Yes, if they are zero/low carbon Yes, if low/zero carbon Partly, if autonomous (micro) energy climate change (i.e. reduce developments, and do not design is applied from the generation solutions are used. But carbon emissions, generate transport emissions. outset, and if new likely to result in significant transport exceeding or matching Travel emissions can be physical and virtual emissions (car travel). international targets) minimised by providing a mix of connections to existing uses in the development and settlements/destinations good connections to existing are low carbon, and/or settlement. reduce travel demand. Improve (or do not worsen) Yes, if development is designed Yes, if development is Unlikely, due to few alternatives to air quality as zero emission from the designed as zero car travel for dispersed outset, and good connections emission from the outset development, so continued are made to adjacent and good connections emissions likely (unless major settlement. But are likely to are made to existing change to electric vehicles). inevitably generate some destinations. But are emissions from increased car likely to inevitably use. generate some emissions from increased car use.

343

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK Facilitate efficient water Yes, if new, efficient water Yes, if new, efficient Partly, can facilitate localised water management (systems and infrastructure is provided (e.g. water infrastructure is harvesting and recycling (at the behaviours) sustainable urban drainage provided (e.g. sustainable level of a dwelling or group of systems) and connections are urban drainage systems) dwellings). But is not efficient for made to supply infrastructure in and connections are mains water provision, and waste adjacent settlement (to made to supply water processing maximise use of any ‘spare’ infrastructure in adjacent capacity). And if new settlement maximising development promotes water use of any ‘spare’ efficient behaviours (e.g. By capacity. And if new using water meters, providing development promotes water butts etc.). But there may water efficient behaviours not be enough water for (e.g. by using water populations in some areas meters, providing water (given regional disparities and butts etc.). But there may climate change). not be enough water for populations in some areas (given regional disparities and climate change).

344

Facilitate efficient energy Yes, if new efficient energy Yes, if new efficient Partly, can facilitate localised energy management (systems and supply systems are provided energy supply systems generation (at the level of a dwelling behaviours) (e.g. renewable) and/or the new are provided (e.g. or group of dwellings). But is not development links to and makes renewable) at the outset. efficient for provision from the use of spare capacity from grid/pipelines. adjacent supply sources. But new population may breach existing supply.

345

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK Facilitate efficient transport Yes, if new efficient transport Yes, if new efficient No, dispersed development is management (systems and infrastructure is provided to transport infrastructure is difficult to service with public behaviours) adjacent settlement and wider provided. And if the new transport, and low carbon travel destinations. And if peripheral settlement is large (walking and cycling) levels tend to development is large enough to enough to provide mix of be lower. provide mix of uses and uses and facilitate facilitate walking/cycling. walking/cycling. Facilitate efficient waste Yes, if new efficient waste Yes, if waste Partly, can facilitate localised waste (solid and water) infrastructure is provided, and/or management systems management, e.g. there may be management (systems and linked to any spare capacity in are well planned and space for compositing. But, behaviours) adjacent settlement infrastructure provided. inefficient for general waste collection, recycling services etc. Facilitate the efficient Partly. Where new infrastructure Yes, if best practice in Partly, if it facilitates small scale integration of different is required there may be the integrated systems (e.g. integrated infrastructure systems infrastructure systems opportunity to introduce new energy to waste, smart (e.g. within autonomous housing). integrated systems (e.g. energy transport) are planned But is inefficient and costly for to waste). But where and provided. mainstream systems (e.g. transport, infrastructure is connecting to energy, waste). existing systems, there may be lock-in. Social characteristics Adapt to future changes Partly, if designed/developed to Partly, if Partly, provides some small scale (social, economic and be flexible to future changes. designed/developed to be flexibility. But not responsive to environmental) in a socially flexible to future changes. major social changes, e.g. does not equitable way provide enough affordable housing.

346

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK Are desirable to the Yes, if high quality extensions, Yes, if the development is Partly, very desirable, particularly to population with a mix of house sizes and high quality, and provides more affluent householders seeking types, are provided at affordable a mix of house sizes and larger homes/more space, for costs. And if the adjacent types at affordable costs. second home owners, and to rural settlement is desirable. residents, seeking to remain in their home towns/villages. Not desirable for those unable to afford it. Provide a range of housing Yes, if designed to Yes, if designed to No, dispersed development has types and tenures to meet accommodate a variety of accommodate a variety of tended to provide housing at the needs and be affordable household types. household types. higher end of the market, with affordability a problem. Are accessible for all Yes, if good connections to the Yes, if good connections No, accessibility is a key problem for adjacent settlement and to wider within the development dispersed developments (in terms of destinations are provided. and to wider destinations distance, range of nearby are provided. destinations, and car dependency). Provide access to health/ Partly, if residents can access Partly, if the new No, accessibility to services is a key education/ culture/ leisure existing provision in adjacent settlement provides problem for dispersed developments services for all settlement (and there is adequate services, or if (in terms of distance, provision of capacity). Or, if adequate new they are provided in other nearby services, and car services are provided within the settlements nearby. dependency). extension.

347

Are healthy Yes, if planned and designed Yes, if planned and Partly, if they support an active, according to healthy urban designed according to rural life. But can become car- planning principles. Can provide healthy urban planning dominated, with inhabitants relying significant opportunities for good principles. Can provide on inactive travel. peripheral design where people significant opportunities can thrive. But, if they are not for good design. But, if

348

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK well connected, can become car they are not well dominated dormitories connected, can become characterised by inactive travel. car-dominated dormitories characterised by inactive travel. Economic Characteristics Do not cause land/property Partly, this depends on how Partly, this depends on Partly, incremental process so does price shocks/instability much land is released and how how much land is not usually have dramatic impact. this affects local/regional supply released and how this But demand for this type of and demand. affects local/regional development by more affluent, and supply and demand. by those buying second homes has changed the rural housing market. Enable efficiencies in Yes, if extensions are relatively Yes, if well planned, and No, it is costly to service dispersed infrastructure costs high density then new if new infrastructure developments. Per capita costs are infrastructure can connect to systems are integrated. If high because of spatial distribution. existing infrastructure in the densities and mix of use adjacent city (where there is are well planned then low capacity), and be provided cost per capita costs. effectively. And, new infrastructure (such as combined heat and power systems) can be provided to serve the new population.

349

Enable efficiencies in public Yes, if extensions are relatively Yes, if populations are No, public services are costly per service (e.g. schools) costs high density then the large enough then capita in dispersed developments, development can use services services can be provided already provided in the adjacent at efficient per capita

350

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK development (i.e. where there is costs. However, there are because of spatial distribution (e.g. capacity), or new services can different population waste collection, social care). be provided (e.g. schools) cost thresholds for different effectively to the new services (e.g. primary community. schools, hospitals), so some costs may be borne by adjacent towns/cities. Enable efficiencies in Yes, if connections to adjacent Partly, if developments No, transport infrastructure is costly transport costs (for suppliers settlement (transport are large enough, and to provide to dispersed and residents) interchanges and hubs) are well planned, then per developments. optimised. capita costs can be low for supplying transport services, and residents will have options to walk/cycle. However, there will be infrastructure costs connecting to other hubs. Support local economies and Yes, if the development is Yes, if the development is Partly, may support rural economies economic diversity large/mixed enough and its large/mixed enough to through population is economically enable residents to be diversification/modernisation. active within the adjacent economically active settlement, or in the new within the settlement. extension.

351

Attract inward investment Yes, if a high quality Yes, if a high quality No, investment in dispersed development, and if it provides development, and if locations tends to be small scale provides buildings/ and piecemeal.

352

Characteristics of successful New peripheral developments New settlements Dispersed development urban forms in the UK buildings/ services/ connections services/ connections desirable to investors desirable to investors. Facilitate innovation and Yes, if attracts creative/skilled Yes, if attracts Partly, there can be small scale creativity population, and supports creative/skilled innovation, but most innovation/ capacity in adjacent or nearby population, and supports creativity is associated with clusters/ creative clusters. capacity in adjacent or hubs of skilled people/businesses. nearby creative clusters. Facilitate efficient ICT Yes, if links to provision in Yes, if it is part of a No. dispersed developments are provision adjacent development, and is connected city region. difficult and costly to service with part of a connected city region. ICT.

353

Appendix 5: Establishing the Baseline

Introduction Before identifying new locations for jobs and homes in Greater Cambridge, it is important to establish the baseline amount and location of existing population, jobs and homes in the area.

Amount and Location of Existing Population, Dwelling Stock and Jobs

Cambridgeshire County Council prepare population and dwelling stock estimates, that are published on Cambridgeshire Insight. Employment (jobs) figures are published on NOMIS and are taken from the Business Register and Employment Survey.

Cambridge 2018 % of % 2018 Employment / % of Ward Dwelling Dwelling Employment Population Jobs Population Stock Stock / Jobs Abbey 10,300 4,420 4,000 7.5 8.1 3.7 Arbury 9,420 4,140 1,750 6.9 7.6 1.6 Castle 10,550 2,730 9,000 7.7 5.0 8.3 Cherry 4,500 9,140 3,850 6.7 7.1 4.1 Hinton Coleridge 10,010 4,220 4,000 7.3 7.7 3.7 East 8,000 9,510 4,220 6.9 7.7 7.3 Chesterton King's 1,500 9,470 4,060 6.9 7.5 1.4 Hedges Market 8,170 2,230 22,000 6.0 4.1 20.2 Newnham 8,030 1,870 8,000 5.9 3.4 7.3 Petersfield 8,720 3,710 6,000 6.4 6.8 5.5 Queen 21,000 9,570 3,900 7.0 7.2 19.3 Edith's Romsey 10,050 4,200 2,250 7.3 7.7 2.1 Trumpington 14,930 6,840 14,000 10.9 12.6 12.8

354

2018 % of % 2018 Employment / % of Ward Dwelling Dwelling Employment Population Jobs Population Stock Stock / Jobs West 3,000 8,990 4,090 6.6 7.5 2.8 Chesterton Total 136,850 54,460 109,000 100 100 100

South Cambridgeshire 2018 % of 2018 % of Settlement Parish Dwelling Dwelling Population Population Hierarchy Stock Stock Abington Pigotts 150 70 0.1 0.1 Infill Arrington 410 170 0.3 0.3 Infill Babraham 320 140 0.2 0.2 Infill Balsham 1,580 680 1.0 1.0 Group Minor Rural Bar Hill 3,870 1,750 2.5 2.6 Centre Barrington 1,100 480 0.7 0.7 Group Bartlow 110 50 0.1 0.1 Infill Barton 830 380 0.5 0.6 Group Bassingbourn-cum- Minor Rural 2,920 1,350 1.9 2.0 Kneesworth Centre Bourn 1,050 440 0.7 0.7 Group Boxworth 220 100 0.1 0.2 Infill Caldecote 1,780 680 1.1 1.0 Group Cambourne 11,290 4,230 7.2 6.4 Rural Centre Carlton 190 90 0.1 0.1 Infill Castle Camps 650 290 0.4 0.4 Group Caxton 590 250 0.4 0.4 Infill Childerley 30 10 0.0 0.0 Infill Minor Rural Comberton 2,360 990 1.5 1.5 Centre Conington 160 60 0.1 0.1 Infill Coton 910 390 0.6 0.6 Group Cottenham 6,160 2,630 3.9 4.0 Rural Centre Croxton 160 70 0.1 0.1 Infill Croydon 220 100 0.1 0.2 Infill Dry Drayton 660 270 0.4 0.4 Group Duxford 1,890 790 1.2 1.2 Group

355

2018 % of 2018 % of Settlement Parish Dwelling Dwelling Population Population Hierarchy Stock Stock Elsworth 650 280 0.4 0.4 Group Eltisley 410 170 0.3 0.3 Group Fen Ditton 750 370 0.5 0.6 Group Fen Drayton 910 370 0.6 0.6 Group Fowlmere 1,280 520 0.8 0.8 Group Foxton 1,280 530 0.8 0.8 Group Minor Rural Fulbourn 4,910 2,010 3.1 3.0 Centre Minor Rural Gamlingay 3,810 1,630 2.4 2.4 Centre Minor Rural Girton 4,710 1,870 3.0 2.8 Centre Grantchester 510 270 0.3 0.4 Infill Graveley 230 90 0.1 0.1 Infill Great Abington 880 370 0.6 0.6 Group Great and Little 630 280 0.4 0.4 Infill Chishill Great Eversden 250 100 0.2 0.2 Infill

Great Shelford 4,460 2,070 2.8 3.1 Rural Centre

Great Wilbraham 680 290 0.4 0.4 Group Guilden Morden 960 410 0.6 0.6 Group Hardwick 2,550 1,040 1.6 1.6 Group Harlton 310 130 0.2 0.2 Infill Harston 1,820 780 1.2 1.2 Group Haslingfield 1,620 710 1.0 1.1 Group Hatley 190 80 0.1 0.1 Infill Hauxton 970 440 0.6 0.7 Group Heydon 240 100 0.2 0.2 Infill Hildersham 200 100 0.1 0.2 Infill Hinxton 330 150 0.2 0.2 Infill

Histon 4,760 1,990 3.0 3.0 Rural Centre

Horningsea 330 160 0.2 0.2 Infill Horseheath 470 210 0.3 0.3 Infill Ickleton 720 320 0.5 0.5 Infill

356

2018 % of 2018 % of Settlement Parish Dwelling Dwelling Population Population Hierarchy Stock Stock

Impington 4,360 1,810 2.8 2.7 Rural Centre

Kingston 240 110 0.2 0.2 Infill Knapwell 90 50 0.1 0.1 Infill Landbeach 850 390 0.5 0.6 Infill Minor Rural Linton 4,650 1,920 3.0 2.9 Centre Litlington 840 360 0.5 0.5 Infill Little Abington 520 250 0.3 0.4 Group Little Eversden 580 240 0.4 0.4 Infill Little Gransden 310 140 0.2 0.2 Infill Little Shelford 850 340 0.5 0.5 Infill Little Wilbraham 440 200 0.3 0.3 Infill Lolworth 150 60 0.1 0.1 Infill Longstanton 3,810 1,580 2.4 2.4 Group Longstowe 210 90 0.1 0.1 Infill Madingley 200 100 0.1 0.2 Infill Minor Rural Melbourn 4,750 2,080 3.0 3.1 Centre Meldreth 2,020 820 1.3 1.2 Group

Minor Rural Milton 4,880 2,120 3.1 3.2 Centre

Newton 370 170 0.2 0.3 Infill Oakington & 1,570 650 1.0 1.0 Group Westwick Orchard Park 2,650 1,000 1.7 1.5 n/a Orwell 1,070 470 0.7 0.7 Group Over 2,880 1,160 1.8 1.7 Group Pampisford 360 160 0.2 0.2 Infill Minor Rural Papworth Everard 3,840 1,560 2.4 2.3 Centre Papworth St Agnes 60 30 0.0 0.0 Infill Rampton 470 200 0.3 0.3 Infill

Sawston 7,300 3,090 4.6 4.6 Rural Centre

Shepreth 780 330 0.5 0.5 Infill

357

2018 % of 2018 % of Settlement Parish Dwelling Dwelling Population Population Hierarchy Stock Stock Shingay-cum-Wendy 120 50 0.1 0.1 Infill Shudy Camps 330 130 0.2 0.2 Infill South Trumpington 450 220 0.3 0.3 n/a

Stapleford 1,970 840 1.3 1.3 Rural Centre

Steeple Morden 1,170 500 0.7 0.8 Group Stow-Cum-Quy 550 250 0.3 0.4 Infill Minor Rural Swavesey 2,570 1,060 1.6 1.6 Centre Tadlow 190 70 0.1 0.1 Infill Teversham 2,810 1,290 1.8 1.9 Group Thriplow 1,180 510 0.7 0.8 Group Toft 550 240 0.3 0.4 Infill

Minor Rural Waterbeach 4,840 2,260 3.1 3.4 Centre

West Wickham 430 180 0.3 0.3 Infill West Wratting 480 200 0.3 0.3 Infill Weston Colville 460 190 0.3 0.3 Infill Whaddon 530 230 0.3 0.3 Infill Whittlesford 1,890 690 1.2 1.0 Group Minor Rural Willingham 4,170 1,810 2.6 2.7 Centre Wimpole 320 120 0.2 0.2 Infill Total 157,470 66,540 100 100

Ward Employment / Jobs % Employment / Jobs Balsham 800 0.9 Bar Hill 3,500 4.1 Barton 1,000 1.2 Bassingbourn 1,500 1.8 Bourn 4,500 5.3 Caldecote 1,000 1.2 Comberton 400 0.5 Cottenham 3,000 3.5 Duxford 1,750 2.1 Fowlmere and Foxton 900 1.1

358

Fulbourn 3,500 4.1 Gamlingay 1,250 1.5 Girton 1,000 1.2 Hardwick 400 0.5 Harston and Hauxton 1,250 1.5 Haslingfield and The 450 0.5 Eversdens Histon and Impington 5,000 5.9 Linton 1,500 1.8 Longstanton 1,500 1.8 Melbourn 3,500 4.1 Meldreth 1,250 1.5 Milton 11,000 12.9 Orwell and Barrington 700 0.8 Papworth and Elsworth 4,000 4.7 Sawston 2,500 2.9 Swavesey 2,000 2.3 Teversham 2,500 2.9 The Abingtons 10,000 11.7 The Mordens 500 0.6 The Shelfords and Stapleford 3,000 3.5 The Wilbrahams 1,750 2.1 Waterbeach 5,000 5.9 Whittlesford 1,750 2.1 Willingham and Over 1,500 1.8 Total 85,150 100

Amount and Location of Committed Housing

Amount

The amount of housing committed in Greater Cambridge is set out in the Greater Cambridge housing trajectory (April 2020). The housing trajectory records annual housing completions anticipated from adopted allocations, sites with planning permission and the windfall allowance from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2033. The housing trajectory also highlights the number of remaining dwellings that will be

359

delivered post 2033 from the adopted allocations and sites with planning permission, where the site is not wholly completed at 31 March 2033.

Anticipated housing completions are only included in the housing trajectory for those sites that have been assessed as either deliverable and / or developable based on the definitions in the glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, February 2019). The housing trajectory also applies lapse rates for non-delivery to some types of site, and maximum annual delivery rates to other types of site.

Using anticipated housing completions from the housing trajectory to estimate the amount of housing committed in Greater Cambridge therefore provides a more conservative estimate of housing commitments than simply adding up the number of dwellings committed on extant allocations and planning permissions.

The Greater Cambridge housing trajectory (April 2020) records that 25,325 dwellings (net) are anticipated to be completed in Greater Cambridge between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2033 on adopted allocations and sites with planning permission, with 1,528 dwellings anticipated to be completed in 2019-2020.

Anticipated completions for 1 April 2033 to 31 March 2041 from adopted allocations and sites with planning permission can be predicted from existing information. It can be assumed that the delivery rates of each site not wholly completed by 31 March 2033 will continue as anticipated for pre-2033, until the site is wholly delivered. This results in the following anticipated annual completions:

2033- 2034- 2035- 2036- 2037- 2038- 2039- 2040- TOTAL: 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2033- 2041 Cambridge 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 allocations, post 2033 Northstowe 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 2,000 Waterbeach 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 2,000 New Town

360

Bourn 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,200 Airfield New Village Cambourne 150 150 150 150 150 80 0 0 830 West Total 1,016 800 800 800 800 730 650 650 6,246

Using these assumptions, 6,246 dwellings (net) are therefore anticipated to be completed in Greater Cambridge between 1 April 2033 and 31 March 2041 on adopted allocations and sites with planning permission.

The new plan period will start on 1 April 2020, and therefore the housing completions for 2019-2020 need to be deducted from the commitments. The Councils have assumed that housing completions for 2019-2020 will be 1,528 dwellings as anticipated in the Greater Cambridge housing trajectory (April 2020).

Therefore for the plan period of 2020-2041, it is anticipated that 30,043 dwellings (net) will be delivered in Greater Cambridge from housing commitments consisting of adopted allocations and sites with planning permission.

However, within this, there are twelve adopted allocations in Cambridge13 that are anticipated to deliver 736 dwellings as they have been assessed as being developable, but which have not yet shown any real progress towards delivery. A review of all the adopted allocations that have not made progress towards delivery will be undertaken as part of the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

Also, this does not take account of any dwellings from the outline planning application (with a planning committee resolution to grant planning permission) for up to 1,500

13 The Paddocks Trading Estate (site R7, 123 dwellings), 379-381 Milton Road (site M1, 95 dwellings), BT telephone exchange and car park, Long Road (site R14, 76 dwellings), Willowcroft (site R2, 78 dwellings), Travis Perkins (site R9, 43 dwellings), Henry Giles House (site R4, 48 dwellings), Camfields Resource Centre and Oil Depot (site R5, 35 dwellings), 149 Cherry Hinton Road and Telephone Exchange (site R8, 33 dwellings), Horizon Resource Centre (site R11, 40 dwellings), Cambridge Professional Development Centre (site R16, 67 dwellings), 82-88 Hills Road and 57-63 Bateman Street (site M5, 20 dwellings), and 315-349 Mill Road and Brookfields (site R21, 78 dwellings) 361

dwellings at the Wellcome Genome Campus, as the Councils did not have sufficient evidence to assess this as deliverable or developable for the housing trajectory.

For the purposes of testing options through the plan-making process it is considered appropriate to rely upon (and therefore include in the baseline for all options) commitments that have reasonable certainty of delivery. In this context, there would seem to be uncertainty of delivery within the plan period for the 736 allocated dwellings that have made little progress and there would seem to be reasonable certainty of delivery within the plan period for the 1,500 dwellings at the Wellcome Campus with a resolution to grant planning permission.

As a result, and for the purposes of considering the strategic spatial options for testing, the Councils have excluded the anticipated delivery from the adopted Cambridge allocations where no progress has been made and included the anticipated delivery from the Wellcome Genome Campus development in the commitments. This results in the following anticipated housing delivery:

Anticipated Anticipated Cambridge Wellcome TOTAL Completions Completions allocations, Genome 2020-2033 2033-2041 with no Campus progress towards delivery 23,797 6,246 -736 1,500 30,807

Distribution

The distribution of housing committed in Greater Cambridge is as set out in the table below, based on the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory (April 2020) and assumed delivery from sites not wholly completed by 31 March 2033 but committed and anticipated to continue delivering until 2041 (as outlined above).

The housing trajectory includes a discount for non-delivery on certain types of sites of 9 dwellings or less. Therefore where this discount has been applied to the total of these sites in the housing trajectory, for the purposes of this paper, the discount has 362

been applied to the total of each type of site for each village / parish, and the numbers rounded up or down where necessary to ensure that the overall total matches the housing trajectory.

From the housing trajectory, it is anticipated that 1,528 dwellings will be completed in 2019-2020. The anticipated completions for each of the specified sites in the housing trajectory are based on a survey in February 2020, and therefore have been taken to be the total completions anticipated for 2019-2020. For the small sites anticipated to be completed in 2019-2020, for the purposes of this paper, the same proportion of anticipated completions compared to overall completions for that source of supply has been applied to the total from each source for each parish / village, and the numbers rounded up or down where necessary to ensure that the overall total matches the housing trajectory.

Additions and Of which, Subtractions Commitments Commitments Therefore, assumed of Sites – 10 or more – 9 or less total for completions compared to dwellings dwellings 2020-2041 2019-2020 Housing Trajectory (April 2020) Cambridge 2,413 485 204 -73614 1,958 Urban Area North West Cambridge 2,163 22 2,141 (University Site) NIAB (Darwin 2,578 100 2,478 Green) Cambridge East - North of 1,300 0 1,300 Newmarket Road

14 This relates to the twelve adopted Cambridge allocations which have not yet shown any real progress towards delivery, as outlined above. 363

Additions and Of which, Subtractions Commitments Commitments Therefore, assumed of Sites – 10 or more – 9 or less total for completions compared to dwellings dwellings 2020-2041 2019-2020 Housing Trajectory (April 2020) Cambridge East - North of 1,200 0 1,200 Cherry Hinton Cambridge East - Land at 22 22 0 Coldhams Lane North of Worts 200 0 200 Causeway South of Worts 230 0 230 Causeway Bell School 32 32 0

Clay Farm 244 93 151 Trumpington 374 72 302 Meadows Northstowe 5,750 246 5,504 Waterbeach 4,900 0 4,900 New Town Bourn Airfield 2,630 0 2,630 New Village Cambourne 2,590 0 2,590 West Arrington 6 2 4

Babraham 3 0 3 Balsham 63 4 30 37 Bar Hill 40 0 40 Barrington 220 14 3 231 Bartlow 2 0 2

Barton 5 2 3

364

Additions and Of which, Subtractions Commitments Commitments Therefore, assumed of Sites – 10 or more – 9 or less total for completions compared to dwellings dwellings 2020-2041 2019-2020 Housing Trajectory (April 2020) Bassingbourn- cum- 69 25 26 68 Kneesworth Bourn 5 0 5 Caldecote 176 33 60 149 Cambourne 93 3 34 62 Carlton 3 0 3 Castle Camps 10 7 2 15 Caxton 14 2 12 Comberton 15 90 3 0 93 Conington 5 2 3

Coton 3 0 3 Cottenham 508 29 56 481 Croydon 6 3 3 Dry Drayton 10 8 1 17 Duxford 4 2 2

Elsworth 4 0 4

Eltisley 2 0 2

Fen Ditton 1 0 1

Fen Drayton 29 6 23

Fowlmere 11 3 8 Foxton 22 8 2 28 Fulbourn 337 9 16 330 Gamlingay 88 35 8 115 Girton 8 13 1 20 Graveley 1 0 1 Great Abington 52 23 42 33

15 This includes the allocation at Bennell Farm that is in the parish of Toft 365

Additions and Of which, Subtractions Commitments Commitments Therefore, assumed of Sites – 10 or more – 9 or less total for completions compared to dwellings dwellings 2020-2041 2019-2020 Housing Trajectory (April 2020) Great and Little 5 0 5 Chishill Great 3 1 2 Eversden Great Shelford 36 10 26 & Stapleford Great 2 0 2 Wilbraham Guilden 0 9 2 7 Morden Hardwick 242 5 53 194 Harlton 9 3 6

Harston 13 8 5

Haslingfield 5 0 5

Hatley 1 0 1 Hauxton 50 3 52 1 Hinxton 0 0 +1,50016 1,500 Histon & 73 18 5 86 Impington Horningsea 2 0 2

Horseheath 3 0 3

Ickleton 1 -1 2

Kingston 5 1 4

Knapwell 1 0 1

Landbeach 4 1 3 Linton 97 19 4 112 Litlington 21 6 1 26 Little Abington 0 0 0

16 This relates to the Wellcome Genome Campus development. 366

Little Gransden 7 2 5

Little Shelford 1 0 1 Little 4 2 2 Wilbraham Lolworth 2 0 2 Longstanton 0 15 4 11 Longstowe 4 0 4 Melbourn 256 9 79 186 Meldreth 40 34 4 70 Milton 11 1 10

Newton 2 2 0 Oakington and 9 2 7 Westwick Orwell 49 10 18 41 Over 99 18 7 110 Papworth 61 1 0 62 Everard Rampton 4 0 4 Sawston 17 471 17 50 438 Shepreth 25 9 2 32 Shingay-cum- 10 0 0 10 Wendy Shudy Camps 5 2 3 Steeple 6 0 6 Morden Stow-cum-Quy 3 0 3

17 This includes the two allocations north and south of Babraham Road that are in the parish of Babraham 367

Teversham 4 -1 5

Thriplow 3 0 3

Toft 3 0 3 Waterbeach 38 26 27 37 West Wickham 7 2 5

West Wratting 3 0 3

Weston Colville 4 1 3

Whaddon 1 0 1 Whittlesford 0 10 6 4 Willingham 180 33 65 148 Wimpole 4 1 3 TOTAL 30,325 1,246 1,528 764 30,807

Percentage of Commitments Percentage of Commitments (with additions and subtractions) Cambridge Urban Area 9.0% 6.4% Edge of Cambridge 26.6% 26.0% New Settlements and 52.0% 55.6% (including Wellcome Cambourne West Genome Campus development) Rural Area 12.4% 12.1%

368

Appendix 6: Delivery assumptions for housing

Introduction In preparing the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply – Main Document and Annex (November 2019), the Councils developed typical assumptions for lead-in times and build-out rates of different sites based on their location and size.

A Housing Delivery Study is being commissioned to independently review and where necessary provide updates / revisions to the Councils’ typical assumptions for lead-in times and build out rates.

The following sections provide detailed information on the lead-in times, build out rates and delivery assumptions used for this paper.

Lead-In Times The typical assumptions for lead-in times as set out in the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply – Main Document and Annex (November 2019) were developed based on the planning application process (outline and reserved matters, full or prior approval) chosen for the site and the type of site (strategic site or non-strategic site). These typical assumptions do not work for this paper, as at this stage the planning application process that will be chosen is not known.

Strategic Sites – New Settlements For the purposes of this paper, the Councils have considered the actual and proposed lead-in times of the existing committed five new settlements.

Northstowe Waterbeach Bourn Airfield Cambourne Cambourne New Town New Village West Dwellings up to 8,000-9,000 approximately 3,000 plus up to 2,350 10,000 3,500 10% Allocated Jul-07 Sep-18 Sep-18 Feb-04 Sep-18

369

Outline planning Feb-12 Feb-17 Sep-18 Jan-92 Dec-14 application submitted

Outline planning Oct-12 May-19 Aug-17 application resolved to grant

Outline planning Apr-14 Sep-19 Apr-94 Dec-17 application granted (decision notice issued)

First RM planning Jun-16 Dec-20 Mar-98 Dec-19 application for housing submitted

First RM planning Sep-16 Jul-98 Jun-20 application for housing granted

First dwelling(s) Mar-17 Apr-21 Jun-21 Sep-20 under construction First dwelling(s) Mar-17 Jun-21 Jan-22 Jun-99 Mar-21 completed Allocated to first 9.7 2.8 3.3 n/a 2.5 completion (in years) Outline planning 5.1 4.3 3.3 7.4 6.3 application submitted to first completion (in years)

When considering all five new settlements collectively, and also the average of from allocation to first completion and outline planning application to first completion (as for some the planning application was submitted ahead of adoption of the allocation), this analysis concludes that the typical lead-in time for a new settlement from allocation to first completions on site is 5 years (rounded to the nearest half year).

370

Strategic Sites – Edge of Cambridge sites For the purposes of this paper, the Councils have considered the actual and proposed lead-in times of the existing committed eight strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge.

Cambridge Cambridge NIAB / East - East - North West Bell Clay Glebe Trumpington Darwin North of North of Cambridge School Farm Farm Meadows Green Newmarket Cherry Road Hinton max of max up to approximately Dwellings up to 3,000 1,593 up to 1,300 286 1,200 347 2,300 1,200 Allocated Oct-09 Jul-06 Feb-08 Sep-18 Jul-06 Jul-06 Jul-06 Jul-06 Outline planning Jun- Sep-11 Dec-06 Dec-13 Mar-18 Aug-06 Dec-07 application 07 submitted Outline planning May- application Aug-12 Jul-10 Apr-16 May-20 Jun-08 Feb-08 08 resolved to grant Outline planning application Aug- granted Feb-13 Feb-15 Nov-16 Dec-10 Oct-09 10 (decision notice issued) First RM planning Feb- Dec- application Dec-13 Sep-15 Mar-19 Oct-21 Dec-13 Jan-11 11 09 for housing submitted First RM planning Aug- application Feb-14 May-16 Sep-19 Mar-22 Apr-14 Jul-11 Jul-11 10 for housing granted First dwelling(s) Mar- Mar-16 Mar-19 Mar-20 Mar-15 Mar-12 under 12 construction First Mar- Mar- dwelling(s) Mar-18 Mar-19 Sep-20 Mar-23 Mar-16 Mar-13 13 13 completed Allocated to first 8.4 12.7 12.6 4.5 9.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 completion (in years)

371

Outline planning application submitted to 6.5 12.3 6.8 5.0 9.6 5.8 3.3 5.3 first completion (in years)

When considering all eight edge of Cambridge sites collectively, and also the average of from allocation to first completion and outline planning application to first completion (as for some the planning application was submitted ahead of adoption of the allocation), this analysis concludes that the typical lead-in time for a strategic edge of Cambridge site from allocation to first completions on site is 7.5 years (rounded to the nearest half year).

Non-Strategic Sites

For the purposes of this paper, the Councils have used the data on lead-in times from the 43 non-strategic sites across Greater Cambridge (as listed in the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory – Main Document (November 2019)), to develop an overall lead-in time for any non-strategic site from validation of planning application to first completions on site. The data was not sufficiently different between Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire to need two separate typical assumptions.

This analysis concludes that the typical lead-in time for a non-strategic site from validation of its planning application to first completions on site is 3 years.

Analysis of the lead-in time from allocation of a site to a planning application being submitted does not allow a typical assumption for this lead-in time to be developed. Some Cambridge allocations have been adopted in more than one plan before coming forwards, and on a number of South Cambridgeshire allocations the planning application was submitted ahead of the Local Plan being adopted.

Within a 21 year plan period, with hopefully at least 15 years remaining from adoption of the Local Plan, it is reasonable to assume that any non-strategic sites will be wholly delivered within the plan period.

372

Build-out Rates

Strategic Sites

For the strategic sites, the Councils published evidence relating to average annual housing completions for new settlements during the preparation and examination of the recently adopted Local Plans. This evidence was used to inform the Greater Cambridge housing trajectory included in the adopted Local Plans. The Inspectors concluded in their reports that the “Council’s assessment of supply is reasonable and evidence-based” and in relation to Waterbeach New Village and Bourn Airfield New Village, the Inspectors concluded in their reports that “the Council is correct to assume a modest delivery rate for the purposes of the housing trajectory”.

For the housing trajectory in the adopted Local Plan, the Councils used an annual completion rate for new settlements of up to 250 dwellings for Waterbeach New Town and Northstowe, and a slightly higher combined annual completion rate of up to 300 dwellings for Bourn Airfield New Village and Cambourne West, given their scale and separation but also proximity to each other.

The Councils have since applied these typical assumptions on build out rates to the strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge, with each of the strategic sites being anticipated to deliver up to 250 dwellings a year, unless the developer / housebuilder has indicated a lower build out rate.

However, higher annual completions have been recorded on the edge of Cambridge, in particular at Cambridge Southern Fringe across the developments of Trumpington Meadows, Glebe Farm, Clay Farm and Bell School. These developments include a mixture of flats and houses.

2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Trumpington 2 141 141 67 103 89 123 148 Meadows Clay Farm 0 16 271 393 149 467 539 109

373

Bell School 0 0 0 0 21 122 45 50 Glebe Farm 0 55 112 86 34 30 0 0 TOTAL 2 212 524 546 307 708 707 307

During the last eight years, Cambridge Southern Fringe has delivered over 250 dwellings in six of those years, and over 500 dwellings in four of those years. To deliver a high housing requirement for Greater Cambridge and a sustainable development strategy by 2041, higher build out rates than previously used as typical assumptions will be needed. The Councils have therefore assumed for the purposes of this paper that build out rates on strategic sites and new settlements can be doubled from the historic assumptions of up to 250 dwellings a year to up to 500 dwellings a year. The Housing Delivery Study will confirm whether this is a reasonable assumption and whether these levels of completions can be achieved on all strategic sites.

Non-strategic Sites

Typical assumptions for build out rates for non-strategic sites were developed as set out in the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply – Main Document and Annex (November 2019) and are as follows:

Average Number of Peak dwellings Size dwellings per years of per year year completions

10-49 40 12 1

Cambridge 50-99 99 90 1

100-199 150 82 2

10-49 39 15 1

South Cambridgeshire 50-99 80 38 2

100-199 90 60 3

374

Delivery Assumptions

New Sites / Broad Locations

The Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme (July 2020) sets out two alternative timetables for the submission of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, depending on whether it is submitted alongside / including the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, or ahead of the Area Action Plan. The latest anticipated submission date is spring 2024. The timetable for the examination of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and the receipt of the Inspector’s Report is subject to the Inspector’s own timetable, and therefore a date of adoption for the Local Plan is not provided. For the purposes of working out anticipated delivery within the plan period for this paper, it has been assumed that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan will be adopted in autumn 2025.

Using the lead-in times and build out rates set out above, and assuming the Greater Cambridge Local Plan is adopted in autumn 2025, results in the following delivery assumptions for any new settlements and edge of Cambridge sites:

Lead-In First Completions Annual Total Completed Time Completion Rate by 2041 Cambridge 7.5 years Spring 2033 (2033- Up to 250 1,935 dwellings Airport 2034) dwellings, historic (rounded down to delivery rates 1,900 dwellings) Cambridge 7.5 years Spring 2033 (2033- Up to 500 3,870 dwellings Airport 2034) dwellings, higher (rounded down to delivery rates 3,800 dwellings) Edge of 7.5 years Spring 2033 (2033- Up to 250 1,935 dwellings Cambridge site / 2034) dwellings, historic (rounded down to broad location of delivery rates 1,900 dwellings) up to 3,900 dwellings Edge of 7.5 years Spring 2033 (2033- Up to 500 3,870 dwellings Cambridge site / 2034) dwellings, higher (round down to broad location of delivery rates 3,800 dwellings)

375

up to 3,900 dwellings New Settlement 5 years Autumn 2030 (2030- Up to 250 2,560 dwellings 2031) dwellings, historic (rounded down to delivery rates 2,500 dwellings) New Settlement 5 years Autumn 2030 (2030- Up to 500 5,120 dwellings 2031) dwellings, higher (rounded down to delivery rates 5,100 dwellings)

North East Cambridge as an area does not fit within the categories for which the Councils have developed lead-in times and build-out rates. There are no other similar sites completed or committed within Cambridge Urban Area from which to develop assumptions, and therefore as a strategic site within the urban area but at its edge, the Councils consider it reasonable to apply the lead-in times and build out rates for strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge. This results in the first delivery assumption set out in the table below.

An Area Action Plan is being prepared for the North East Cambridge area, and the draft plan (July 2020) includes a housing trajectory for the area. This housing trajectory in the draft Area Action Plan assumes much higher annual build out rates than historically assumed for strategic sites and assumes delivery soon after adoption of the Area Action Plan. The draft Area Action Plan explains that it takes account of ongoing engagement with landowners / developers, current expectations of the housing and employment market, efficient building processes such as modular housing, the housing types to be delivered, and housing tenures which support quick delivery such as build to rent. The draft Area Action Plan also highlights that the Councils are not advocating the housing trajectory as set out, but are instead seeking comments on it. Using this housing trajectory and making some assumptions for 2040-2041 results in the second delivery assumption set out in the table below.

Lead-In First Completions Annual Total Completed Time Completion Rate by 2041 North East 7.5 years Spring 2033 (2033- Up to 250 1,935 dwellings Cambridge 2034) dwellings, historic (rounded down to delivery rates 1,900 dwellings)

376

North East as per assumed to be 2025- as per housing 8,070 dwellings18 Cambridge housing 2026 trajectory (rounded down to trajectory in 8,000 dwellings) Draft Area Action Plan (July 2020)

Existing New Settlements

As the Councils consider that it is reasonable to assume for the purposes of this paper that any new strategic sites and new settlements will be able to deliver up to 500 dwellings a year, the Councils also consider that these build out rates will be able to be achieved on existing committed new settlements. Assuming higher annual build out rates of double existing anticipated completions19 on each of the new settlements, after the end of the current (2020-2025) five year period, results in the following additional capacity:

Already included in ADDITIONAL capacity from Commitments Existing Commitments, if higher build out rates Northstowe 5,750 [phase 1 = 1,069 3,819 dwellings, phases 2 & 3 = 4,681 [phases 2 & 3 only] dwellings] Waterbeach New Town 4,900 4,000 Bourn Airfield New Village 2,630 870 Cambourne / Cambourne 2,590 0 West Total 15,870 8,689 (rounded down to 8,600)

18 The housing trajectory in the draft Area Action Plan only considers a plan period to 2040 and indicates that 8,000 dwellings could be delivered by then. For the purposes of this paper, it has been assumed that the 2040+ anticipated dwellings are delivered evenly over the five years from 2040 to 2045 and therefore that a further 70 dwellings could be delivered in 2040-2041, resulting in 8,070 dwellings anticipated by 2041. 19 Existing anticipated completions of up to 250 dwellings a year each for Northstowe (phases 2 & 3) and Waterbeach New Town, therefore double to up to 500 dwellings a year each. Existing anticipated completions of up to 150 dwellings a year each for Bourn Airfield New Village and Cambourne West, therefore double to up to 300 dwellings a year each. 377

Existing Strategic Sites on Edge of Cambridge

The Councils do not consider that it is reasonable to assume that build out rates for existing strategic sites on the edge of Cambridge can be increased. This is because there is already more than one strategic site being delivered with anticipated completions of up to 250 dwellings a year in each edge of Cambridge broad location20, and therefore each broad location is already anticipated to deliver high annual completions.

20 For example, in north west Cambridge, there are two sites - the university site and the NIAB / Darwin Green development, and in east Cambridge, there are two sites - land north of Newmarket Road and land north of Cherry Hinton. 378

Appendix 7: Identifying the number and location of jobs for modelling purposes

Introduction The Greater Cambridge Employment Land Review & Economic Evidence Base Study (GL Hearn, with SQW, Cambridge Econometrics, and Iceni Projects, November 2020) (the ELR) explores in detailed the committed employment land supply, and quantitative and qualitative issues regarding land for different types of employment.

For the plan period of 2020-2041, it is anticipated that 459,319 sqm (net) of business floorspace will be delivered in Greater Cambridge from business floorspace commitments consisting of adopted allocations and sites with planning permission. Adding the anticipated increase in business floorspace of 150,000 sqm from the outline planning application (with a planning committee resolution to grant planning permission) at the Wellcome Genome Campus results a baseline of 609,319 sqm (net) business floorspace for 2020-2041.

For the purposes of transport modelling, it is important that each modelled scenario includes the same total number of jobs and homes, in order that they can be directly comparable. It is also necessary to consider the distributions of jobs.

Allocations for employment land in Local Plans only account for a relatively small proportion of overall jobs – employment allocations are for jobs in the ‘B’ use classes (covering office, research and development and industrial uses). These don’t currently account for the very significant proportion of jobs arising in other population- driven sectors such as shops, leisure and education, although as of September 2020 there has been a reorganisation of use classes including the introduction of Use Class E replacing Use Class B.

379

Establishing a baseline

As a first step, guided by the ELR, the split between ‘B’ use jobs and non ‘B’ use jobs was identified.

Requirement Minimum Medium Maximum Total jobs requirement 45,800 58,500 79,500 Jobs requirement in ‘B’ 10,765 20,625 26,735 Uses

The non-B Jobs are largely guided by population growth, these were therefore left to the transport modelling team to consider as the model runs were developed.

The Councils have provided distributions of ‘B’ use jobs for each spatial option to the transport modelling team, for them to apply alongside standard assumptions for population driven non ‘B’ use job sectors. Due to the significant level of existing commitments, the Councils have largely distributed jobs to those locations, however for all growth level options and all spatial options a small number of jobs have been distributed to the new locations specific to the spatial option that is being tested.

The Councils do not have a trajectory for completions of business land or floorspace in the same way as they do for housing. Many strategic sites take a number of years to come forward, including crossing into subsequent plan periods. This can particularly be the case for new settlements. The housing trajectory anticipates that a number of the existing new settlements will continue to develop beyond 2041. For the purposes of transport modelling we have also assumed that not all the business land and floorspace will be delivered by that time either.

For the purposes of distributing ‘B use’ jobs, officers were guided by site by site information in the ELR, and as a starting point a list of 22 strategic sites were identified, with potential job numbers guided by planning application information or using floorspace to jobs densities. Initial assumptions on delivery were then applied to each site in terms of the amount of jobs anticipated in 2020-2041:

380

• the number of jobs anticipated at Waterbeach New Town, Northstowe (phases 2 & 3) and Bourn Airfield New Village is based on the proportion of homes anticipated, • the change in the number of jobs anticipated at Clifton Road Industrial Estate is considered to be neutral as although the site is allocated for redevelopment, there are ‘B’ use jobs anticipated within the resulting mixed use development, • the number of jobs anticipated at Cambridge Research Park, Landbeach, assumes delivery of the vacant plots that are subject to a pending outline planning application, and • the number of jobs anticipated at Northstowe is based on the Economic Development Strategy submitted with the phase 3 outline planning applications, which includes updated ‘B’ use assumptions for the whole development.

This created a ‘B’ use jobs baseline for 2020-2041. As this number of ‘B use’ jobs was higher than that forecast for either the minimum or medium growth levels, and was only a few thousand jobs less than the maximum growth levels, and it is expected that new housing allocations or new settlements necessary to deliver the housing growth levels being considered would be accompanied by ‘B’ use jobs in new locations, officers have amended the anticipated delivery from these 22 sites for each growth level. However, these 22 sites are anticipated to deliver the same number of jobs for each of the 8 spatial options within a growth level.

For the maximum growth level, in addition to the assumptions already considered, a further reduction in anticipated new jobs delivery of 20% (from the baseline for 2020- 2041) has been assumed on all sites except for on developments: within the North East Cambridge area; with the most recent permissions; and where an overall loss of jobs is anticipated. For the medium growth level, the same approach has been taken, however, a reduction in anticipated new jobs delivery of 40% (from the baseline for 2020-2041) rather than 20% has been assumed.

For the minimum growth level, more significant reductions to jobs delivery for each of the 22 sites have been assumed to enable jobs to be distributed alongside the new

381

locations for housing growth in each of the 8 spatial options. For those developments that have outline planning permission, an outline planning application pending or are allocated in the adopted Local Plans but do not yet have planning permission, a reduction in anticipated new jobs delivery of 60% (from the baseline for 2020-2041) has been assumed. For those developments with full planning permission or a prior approval permission, a reduction of 30% (from the baseline for 2020-2041) has been assumed. No reduction has been applied to any anticipated loss of existing jobs.

These assumptions result in the jobs distribution across existing commitments as set out in the table below:

Site / location ‘B’ use ‘B’ use ‘B’ use ‘B’ use ‘B’ use Jobs – Jobs – Jobs – Jobs – Jobs – baseline baseline maximum medium minimum (all time) (2020- (2020- (2020- (2020- 2041) 2041) 2041) 2041) West Cambridge 6,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 800 Wellcome Trust Genome 4,000 4,000 3,200 2,400 1,600 Campus, Hinxton Cambourne Business Park 800 800 640 480 320 North West Cambridge 1,500 1,500 1,200 900 600 (Eddington) Former Spicers Site, Sawston 350 350 350 350 245 (Huawei) East of Peterhouse Technology Park, Cambridge 1,600 1,600 1,280 960 640 (South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, Policy E/3) Cambourne West 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 460 Waterbeach New Town 2,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 440 Cambridge East – North of -465 (+85, -465 (+85, -465 (+85, -465 (+85, -515 (+35, Newmarket Road (Wing / -550) -550) -550) -550) -550) Marleigh) Grant Park, Great Abington 1,200 1,200 960 720 480 Addenbrooke’s Hospital and Biomedical Campus 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 600 (including South

382

Site / location ‘B’ use ‘B’ use ‘B’ use ‘B’ use ‘B’ use Jobs – Jobs – Jobs – Jobs – Jobs – baseline baseline maximum medium minimum (all time) (2020- (2020- (2020- (2020- 2041) 2041) 2041) 2041) Cambridgeshire Local Plan, Policy E/2) Cambridge Research Park, 1,100 1,100 880 660 440 Landbeach Northstowe Phase 1 = Phase 1 = Phase 1 = Phase 1 = Phase 1 = 670, 670, 670, 670, 270, Phases 2 Phases 2 Phases 2 Phases 2 Phases 2 & 3 = & 3 = 660 & 3 = 660 & 3 = 660 & 3 = 265 1,200 Bourn Airfield New Village 1,200 900 900 900 360 Clifton Road Industrial Estate 0 0 0 0 -330 area, Cambridge West of London Road, 1,070 1,070 830 (+955, 590 (+715, 355 (+480, Pampisford (+1,195, - (+1,195, - -125) -125) -125) 125) 125) Station Road area, -370 -370 -370 -370 -370 Cambridge Fulbourn Road West, Cambridge (Cambridge Local 790 790 630 470 315 Plan, sites GB3 and GB4) Cambridge Science Park 2,690 2,690 2,690 2,690 1,880 Nuffield Road Industrial -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 Estate, Cambridge St Johns Innovation Centre, 235 235 235 235 165 Cambridge Cowley Road Industrial 880 880 880 880 615 Estate, Cambridge TOTAL 29,190 23,350 20,910 18,470 9,630

Delivery assumptions The Councils do not have typical assumptions for anticipated delivery of ‘B use’ jobs from different types of developments (e.g. new settlements, edge of Cambridge sites). The following sections therefore provide information on the delivery 383

assumptions used for ‘B use’ jobs in the new locations for growth identified in each of the 8 spatial options in this paper.

Additional jobs from existing new settlements For the maximum growth level, each of the 8 spatial options assumes that additional dwellings will be delivered by 2041 from the existing new settlements based on a higher (doubled) annual delivery rate. In the jobs baseline (as set out in the table above), the proportion of jobs anticipated on these existing new settlements by 2041 has been assumed based on the proportion of dwellings anticipated. Therefore, for the maximum growth level, in each of the 8 spatial options additional jobs need to be assumed to be consistent with the dwelling assumptions.

For the purposes of this paper and for the maximum growth level only, 1,840 additional jobs (in addition to those jobs already included in the table above) are anticipated by 2041 from the existing new settlements based on the assumption that each of these new settlements will be wholly completed by 2041: • Northstowe (phases 2 & 3): 540 additional jobs • Waterbeach New Town: 1,000 additional jobs • Bourn Airfield New Village: 300 additional jobs

For the medium and minimum growth levels, the number of jobs assumed in the table above is the same proportion as the number of dwellings assumed at the existing annual delivery rates.

Jobs at new settlements For any additional new settlements included in a spatial option, officers have assumed that a similar jobs provision will be provided at these new developments as is expected to be provided at the existing new settlements, with differing amounts based on the size of the new settlement.

Northstowe is anticipated to deliver 10,000 new homes and up to approx. 2,100 jobs in ‘B uses’. Waterbeach New Town is anticipated to deliver 9,000 new homes and approx. 2,100 jobs in ‘B uses’, with Cambridge Research Park at Landbeach across the A10. Bourn Airfield New Village is anticipated to deliver 3,500 new homes and 384

approx. 1,200 jobs. Cambourne West is anticipated to deliver 2,350 new homes and approx. 1,145 jobs in ‘B uses’, with Cambourne Business Park and the existing settlement of Cambourne to the east.

For the purposes of this paper, a new settlement of 9,000 new homes is anticipated to deliver 2,500 new jobs in ‘B uses’ and a new settlement of 4,500 new homes is anticipated to deliver 1,500 new jobs in ‘B uses’. The proportion of new jobs assumed at each new settlement by 2041 has been anticipated for each spatial option and each growth level (where they are included as a location for development) based on the proportion of new homes anticipated by 2041. However, a delay in the provision of jobs compared to homes is included as on new developments new business floorspace and therefore ‘B use’ jobs tend to be delivered after the first new homes have been completed and occupied.

Officers have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided at new settlements will largely be B1 uses, with a small proportion of B2 and B8 uses. For the purposes of this paper, the following split across the ‘B uses’ has been applied to new ‘B use’ jobs in new settlements: • B1 use: 85% of the overall ‘B use’ jobs. • B2 and B8 uses: 15% of the overall ‘B use’ jobs, with 75% of these jobs being B2 use and 25% being B8 use.

Jobs at Cambridge Airport Officers had assumed that the 2,000 existing ‘B use’ jobs would be lost, and that 5,000 new ‘B use’ jobs will be re-provided within the new development (based on the adopted Cambridge East Area Action Plan). However, only 675 ‘B use’ jobs are recorded on this site in the transport model, and therefore for the purposes of this paper this site is assumed to lose up to 675 ‘B use’ jobs and re-provide up to 5,000 ‘B use’ jobs.

For all spatial options and for all growth levels, where Cambridge Airport is included as a location for development, it is assumed that all existing jobs will be lost, even where only some new jobs are assumed. This is because it is assumed that the

385

existing airport uses on the site will all need to be removed before any new development can take place.

The proportion of new jobs assumed at Cambridge Airport by 2041 has been anticipated for each spatial option and each growth level (where it is included as a location for development) based on the proportion of new homes anticipated by 2041. However, a delay in the provision of jobs compared to homes is included as on new developments new business floorspace and therefore ‘B use’ jobs tend to be delivered after the first new homes have been completed and occupied.

Officers have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided at Cambridge Airport will largely be B1 uses, with a small proportion of B2 and B8 uses. For the purposes of this paper, the following split across the ‘B uses’ has been applied to new ‘B use’ jobs at Cambridge Airport: • B1 use: 85% of the overall ‘B use’ jobs. • B2 and B8 uses: 15% of the overall ‘B use’ jobs, with 75% of these jobs being B2 use and 25% being B8 use.

Jobs at North East Cambridge For North East Cambridge, officers have assumed that this site can deliver the jobs anticipated by the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (July 2020). The draft Area Action Plan anticipates that 20,000 jobs will be provided within the development from the 234,500 sqm of B1 floorspace anticipated. This is in addition to the existing commitments on the Cambridge Science Park and other industrial estates that fall within the Area Action Plan boundary, which are included in the jobs baseline as set out in the table above.

In order for the jobs numbers to balance in each of the spatial options, the anticipated level of jobs from this site has been reduced more than for other locations given the significant number of jobs anticipated at North East Cambridge, and the long term nature of this site. A delay in the provision of jobs compared to homes is included as on new developments new business floorspace and therefore ‘B use’ jobs tend to be delivered after the first new homes have been completed and occupied.

386

Jobs at Green Belt broad locations For spatial option 3 (Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt), where all new development is proposed in broad locations on the edge of Cambridge and in the Green Belt, officers have assumed that new ‘B use’ jobs will be provided in these broad locations alongside the new homes. For other spatial options that include these broad locations on the edge of Cambridge and in the Green Belt, officers have assumed that no new ‘B use’ jobs will be provided alongside the new homes as there are existing ‘B use’ jobs within Cambridge and on nearby employment sites. However, given the significant level of new homes proposed in these broad locations in spatial option 3, it is anticipated that ‘B use’ jobs will be provided in the same way as ‘B use’ jobs are provided in new settlements and will be provided as part of Eddington (North West Cambridge), North East Cambridge, and Cambridge East.

Officers have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided in the broad locations on the edge of Cambridge and in the Green Belt will be all B1 uses, due to the need for any ‘B use’ developments to be compatible with both the existing and proposed residential uses in these locations. There is not the same scope as within new settlements to locate incompatible ‘B uses’ (such as B2 and B8 uses) away from residential uses.

Jobs in villages For spatial option 5 (Villages), where all the development is proposed in new developments within or on the edge of villages, officers have assumed that new ‘B use’ jobs will be provided in the villages alongside the new homes. For other spatial options that include development in villages, officers have assumed that no new ‘B use’ jobs will be provided alongside the new homes as there are existing ‘B use’ jobs within villages and on nearby employment sites. However, given the significant level of new homes proposed in the villages in spatial option 5, it is anticipated that additional ‘B use’ jobs will be provided either within a development or through new or expanded employment sites. 387

Officers have assumed that ‘B use’ jobs provided in the villages will largely be B1 uses, with a small proportion of B2 and B8 uses. For the purposes of this paper, the following split across the ‘B uses’ has been applied: • B1 use: 85% of the overall ‘B use’ jobs. • B2 and B8 uses: 15% of the overall ‘B use’ jobs, with 75% of these jobs being B2 use and 25% being B8 use.

Distribution of ‘B’ use jobs in the spatial options The following tables set out the distribution of the ‘B’ use jobs to find in the new growth locations for each of the spatial options, once the existing committed jobs have been deducted as follows:

Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Calculation / Growth Level 2020-2041 2020-2041 2020-2041 Total ‘B’ use jobs to find 10,765 20,625 26,735 Jobs from already committed locations (see 9,630 18,470 20,910 table above) Committed new settlements - additional delivery (as N/A N/A 1,840 described above) Balance to be made in new 1,135 2,155 3,985 allocations

Notes: • Total ‘B’ use jobs to find: this is the ‘B’ use jobs requirement 2020-2041, derived from Greater Cambridge Employment Land Review. • Jobs from already committed locations: this is the ‘B use’ jobs baseline for each of the growth level options as set out above. • Committed new settlements - additional delivery: as set out above, when the higher delivery rates assumption is incorporated into the maximum growth

388

scenario for all options, a further 1,840 jobs could be delivered from the existing committed new settlements by 2041. • Balance to be made in new allocations: this is the balance of ‘B’ use jobs that has been distributed to the new growth locations.

389

Spatial Scenario 1: Focus on Densification of existing urban areas Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 1,135 20,000 2,580 20,000 3,910 20,000 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 -425 4,325 75 4,325 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 0 0 0 0 0 0 settlements Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 1,135 20,000 2,155 24,325 3,985 24,325

Spatial Scenario 2: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: outside Green Belt Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 1,560 20,000 1,680 20,000 2,310 20,000 Cambridge Cambridge Airport -425 4,325 -425 4,325 575 4,325 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 0 0 900 3,000 1,100 4,000 settlements Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 1,135 24,325 2,155 27,325 3,985 28,325

390

Spatial Scenario 3: Focus on Edge of Cambridge: Green Belt Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 1,135 1,135 2,155 2,155 3,985 3,985 Fringe New 0 0 0 0 0 0 settlements Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 1,135 1,135 2,155 2,155 3,985 3,985

Spatial Scenario 4: Focus on New Settlements Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 1,135 3,000 2,155 8,000 3,985 9,000 settlements Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 1,135 3,000 2,155 8,000 3,985 9,000

391

Spatial Scenario 5: Focus on Dispersal: Villages Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 0 0 0 0 0 0 settlements Villages 1,135 1,135 2,155 2,155 3,985 3,985 Total Total 1,135 1,135 2,155 2,155 3,985 3,985

Spatial Scenario 6: Focus on Public transport corridors Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 655 20,000 1,705 20,000 3,110 20,000 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 480 1,500 450 2,500 875 2,500 settlements Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 1,135 21,500 2,155 22,500 3,985 22,500

392

Spatial Scenario 7: Supporting a high-tech corridor by integrating homes and jobs (southern cluster) Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 0 0 0 0 2,410 20,000 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 0 0 575 4,325 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 1,135 1,500 540 1,500 1,000 2,500 settlements Villages 0 0 1,615 1,615 0 0 Total Total 1,135 1,500 2,155 3,115 3,985 26,325

Spatial Scenario 8: Expanding a growth area around transport nodes Source of Minimum: Medium: Maximum: Minimum: Medium: Maximum: supply / 2020- 2020- 2020- All time All time All time Growth Level 2041 2041 2041 Cambridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 urban area North East 0 0 1,615 20,000 2,410 20,000 Cambridge Cambridge Airport 0 0 0 0 575 4,325 (safeguarde d land) Green Belt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fringe New 1,135 1,500 540 1,500 1,000 2,500 settlements Villages 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Total 1,135 1,500 2,155 21,500 3,985 26,325

393

Appendix 8: Baseline, opportunities and constraints mapping

394

Strategy options methodology mapping Contents 1. Baseline: a) Existing homes b) Existing employment c) Current transport connections, urban areas and employment sites 2. Commitments a) Housing commitments b) Jobs commitments 3. Opportunities and constraints a) Future transport infrastructure b) Rural services proxy – South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 settlement designations For environmental constraints - See Figures in Greater Cambridge Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

395

1. Baseline

396

397

398

399

2. Commitments

400

401

402

3. Opportunities and constraints

403

404

Rural services proxy – South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 village designations

405